HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-08 - Agenda Packet - HPC / PC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 8, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
• Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Howdyshell _ Vice Chairman Fletcher
Munoz_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the
Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic
Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously
included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the
audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please
refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity
which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
• A. GOVERNMENT REFERRAL DRC2013-00319 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY-An informational presentation to the Planning Commission of an upgrade
to the Southern California Gas Company's system by adding advanced meter
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
RANCHO MAY 81 2013
CMAMONOA Page 2
communications devices to residential and business natural gas meters which will
require the installation of data collectors mounted on poles 24 feet in height at various
locations throughout the Company's service area that includes the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Approval of minutes dated April 24, 2013
IF V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law.
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be •
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2013-00101 AND ADDENDUM TO THE
GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(FPEIR)
(SCH#2000061027) -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A supplemental update to
the Development Code Update (DRC2010-00571) to amend Article II (Land Use and
Development Procedures),Article III (Zoning Districts,Allowed Uses and Development
Standards), Article IV (Site Development Provisions), Article V (Specific Use
Requirements), Article VII (Design Standards and Guidelines) and Article VII
(Glossary) of Title 17 (Development Code) as well as a proposed addendum to the
General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report(FPEIR). This action will be
forwarded to the City Council for final action.
VI. COMMISSION CONCERNWHISTORIC PRESERVATION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
VII. ADJOURNMENT
1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 2, 2013, at least 72 hours prior to •
the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
RANCHO MAY 82 2013
CtV"ONGe Page 3
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given
the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you
may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the
views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain
from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
• please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and
speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium.
It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are
generally limited to 5 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is
opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda.
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for
distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be
used for the official public record.
All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for
scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning
Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These
documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office
and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and
governed by the City Council).
• Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us
Vicinity Map
Historic Preservation and
Planning Commission Meeting
May 8 , 2013
------- - -
i y d E a o
CL
Chrch E c i
L € > i
1 LCL
U Q 2 2
Y I
U I
1 -
Ism st •,
4
\t
Base Line j= /Base
u
i Church
ti
Foothil I AW . Foothill N
d
Arrow _ � Arrow
= W L R I
- J rsey 3 i
8th w i
> a
1+ A N c 6m W
0 6m
L
4m 4m
* Meeting Location:
City Hall/Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Dr�
Item A: Citywide Advanced Meter Project (presentation by Southem California Gas Company)
Item B: Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes dated April 24, 2013
Item C: Development Code Amendment/Updates
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE MINUTES OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 24, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
• Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM
Roll Call
Chairman Howdyshell x Vice Chairman Fletcher x
Munoz x Wimberly x Oaxaca
Additional Staff Present: Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager, Economic and Community Development;
Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager,Administrative Services;Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager;Dan
James, Sr. Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Trang Huynh, Building
Official;Tabe van der Zwaag,Associate Planner; Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner,; Steven Flower,
Assistant City Attorney.
II. PUBLIC'COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the
Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic
Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously
included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the
audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please
• refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity
which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
Item B
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONOA Page 2
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. UPDATE ON THE MAIL BALLOT FOR VICTORIA NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND
LANDSCAPING NEEDS
Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager, gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC:P.RESERVATION AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Approval of regular meeting minutes dated April 10, 2013
C. Approval of adjourned (workshop) meeting minutes dated April 10, 2013
Motion to approve the consent calendar by Munoz. Seconded by Wimberly. Adopted 4-0-1 •
(Oaxaca absent).
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law.
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2013-00157 —
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD): A request to demolish "The
Chinatown House," a designated historic landmark, in the Mixed Use/Retail (MUR)
District located at 9591 San Bernardino Road that has been deemed unsafe for
occupancy by the City's Building and Safety Official and "red-tagged" on
December 6, 2012; APN: 0208-151-24. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager stated that the Commission had also been given the
following items:an excerpt from an appraisal report that concludes the base value of the property
is$695,000;a Chinatown House Adaptive Reuse report submitted by Eugene Moy showing the
costs to protect,preserve and restore the structure would be 1.76 million dollars;and a letter from •
CVWD that states it would comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the report from staff.
Trang Huynh, Building Official, gave a PowerPoint presentation(copy on file)and gave an update
regarding prior inspections.
B-2
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
Cncer+oNce Page 3
Commissioner Wimberfy said there is an indication of"demolition by neglect'and asked whether
anyone notified the owner of its responsibility to maintain the property.
Chairman Howdyshell said she found the report informative and reported that she went to the site
today to see it firsthand.
Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that no one would expect a building built 80-100yearsago would
meet today's codes. He asked if current codes would be required and if so, then would it depict
how it was originally built.
Mr. Hyung said he used the California Historic Building Code which is different than today's
standards. He said, for example, the wind tolerance requirement is only 75% of what the new
code requires.
Commissioner Oaxaca arrived at 7:37 PM.
Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the fact that it is secured with fencing mitigates the safety risk.
• Candyce Burnett said that even though it is red tagged, people are breaching the fence and it is
still a safety hazard.
Commissioner Oaxaca asked how the deterioration of the building is relevant to physical integrity
of the structure vs. historic integrity of the structure and how that relates to the MND.
Jo Lynne Russo-Pereyra,Assistant General Managerof CVWD, said the District will comply with
the demolition order and conditions/mitigations in the report.
Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there has been any discussion of selling the property to the
historic groups.
Ms Russo-Pereyra said no. The project will be reviewed by the District's Engineering Commfittee
on May 1:r and then to a Board meeting following that. She said the District has no plans to sell at
this time. She said they are not in the business of historic preservation;they are in the business
to sell water and sewer services and they do not want their water customers or the District to be
liable. She said a proposal for 1.7 million was presented but without any specific plan for funding
and CVWD will not provide those resources.
Commissioner Munoz asked what the CVWD has spent over the years to maintain the structure or
make it safer other than fencing.
Ms Pereyra said she did not have any prior information to the red tagging. She said they have
gone out to the property to maintain the fence when it is compromised.
• Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing.
Luana Hernandez of HPARC said the building has been neglected and read a letter from the
California Preservation Foundation (copy on file).
B-3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONGA Page 4
Paul Perez, member of the Chinatown Historical Society, the CACA, and other groups said
demolition is not the only option. He provided a letter from the Office of Historic Preservation-
signed by Jean Saunders(copy on file). He said they have raised$1,000 and are just starting to,
address the financial need.
Ed Dietl of HPARC said the only thing CVWD does is patch the fence. He read from letter from
the National Trust for Historic Preservation(copy on file). He said this is a case of-demolition by
neglect. He said an EIR is required when there is a conflict of opinion. He said the mitigation
measures are insufficient.
Eugene Moy, VP Chinese Historical Society of Southern California, VP of the Chinese American
Alliance Lodge and VP of the Chinatown House Preservation Coalition, said the community has
not had enough time. He said millions of dollars are spent to reinforce/renovate old structures.
He said that grants are given for other preservation efforts. He said he recognizes the technical
challenges. He said he has a letter from Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP(copy on file).
Sandy Dietl said that if it was her house, the City would have made her make it right. She said
CVWD does not want the liability or to sell or donate it. •
Chairman Howdyshell closed the public hearing at 8:20 pm.
Commissioner Munoz said he considered the MND and cannot support staffs recommendation.
He said several stays have been given, its red tagged, and fenced and safe enough for4 months.
He said we should allow more time to make an informed decision regarding the alternatives. He
said he concurs with some of what he heard from the public. He said CVWD purchased the
property knowing it was historic and did nothing. He said he has seen homes in worse condition
restored. He said he is not debating the Building Official's opinion but the City needs to explore
the alternatives to see if the building can be saved.
Vice Chairman Fletcher asked the Assistant CityAttomey about staffs recommendation regarding
the MND and the legal questions raised by the Office of Historic Preservation.
Steven Flower, the Assistant City Attorney, said he reviewed all the correspondence and said no
new substantial evidence was given that supports a conclusion that MND is incorrect. He said the
Initial Study draws a connection between the loss of significance and loss of the structure. He
said the evidence shows that preservation will cost $1.768 million and the appraisal of the
property is only$695,000(2.5 times the cost of the property). If there are no funds to preserve it;
there is no way it will survive. He said the Commission has before them a narrow issue on which
they can offer advice. He said the MND is legally defensible but that the Commission can reach a
different conclusion. He said with respect to the "fair argument"standard, that it applies to all
Mitigated Neg Decs. In response to Vice Chairman Fletcher, he said the requirement in the
Municipal Code for a Certificate of Appropriateness does not apply when the Building Official
deems the building publicly unsafe.
Commissioner Oaxaca said the Commission needs to be grounded in reality based on short •
term/long term affects. He said he did not see the justification for demolition. He said he also
does not believe significance is dependent upon the physical condition of the structure. He said
B-4
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013.
CUCAMONGA Page 5
he did not believe the proposed MND is valid. He said an EIR should be prepared. He said the
City's own documentation shows significance of the China House. He said preparation of an EIR
would provide a formal transparent process that would better inform the Commission.
Chairman Howdyshell said she concurred with Commissioner Oaxaca. She said that raising 1.7
million dollars is a challenge and she had hoped that the preservation groups would have secured
some money by now: She said the property is deteriorating daily. She said preparing an EIR will
allow more time for a more informed decision.
Vice Chairman Fletchersaid the Commission did not hear from the preservationist groups until the
building was red-tagged. He said he did not expect the CVWD to pay for to repair the structure,
but it bought a property with a historic structure on the property. He said he did not see a
resolution unless the owner sells the property. He said the building will probably fall down before
it gets preserved. He said the City has not discussed all the alternatives. He said he is not
opposed to letting it sit there as long as an effort is made to protect the public.
Mr. Flower said the Commission has the option to accept or reject the MND, take no action, or
recommend an EIR. He suggested the Commission could act on two motions; the first to accept
• or reject the MND; and the second to advise there be no demolition or action until an EIR is
prepared.
Mr. Hyung said the demolition order was sent but CVWD has not applied forthe demolition permit
yet.
Motion: Commissioner Munoz moved to reject the proposed MND. Seconded by Wimberly.
Carried 5-0
Motion: Commissioner Fletcher moved to advise the Building Official to delay demolition of the
Chinatown house until an EIR is prepared and in the meantime ask the CVWD to implement an
emergency stabilization plan for the structure. Seconded by Oaxaca. Carried 5-0
9:10 PM
'VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNIN6 COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law.
The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
E. MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00868-CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA — A request to modify the Engineering Conditions for previously
approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18. The modified condition will
• require the receipt of an in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements
instead of the current requirement for the installation of the improvements located within
the General Industrial District, at 13249 Arrow Route —APN: 0229-171-15 and 0229-
171-16. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
B-5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONGA Page 6
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15301(n) (Class
1 Exemption —Existing Facilities) conversion of a single-family residence into an office
use.
Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer, gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He said the
applicant is concerned about the costs of the in lieu fees, which total about $72,300. Staff
believes the fees to be appropriate. He said the only change proposed for the project is to the
requirement for street frontage improvements. He said undergrounding would still be required if
the property to the north is developed. The amended condition would read as follows:
2) An in-lieu fee for the future construction of street improvements along
the frontage of 13249 Arrow Route must be paid prior to building permit
issuance.
Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing.
Jose Mendez asked about the requirements for using the property and said he was told nothing-
and then they bought the property. He said he has had to pay other fees as well and now they
have to do landscaping, a block wall, and pay for street improvements. He said he cannot afford •
it.
Chairman Howdyshell closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Munoz said the application was approved a year ago and the applicant knew what
needed to be done. He said he did not understand the"I didn't know'excuse. He said he is okay
with the City's requirements.
Commissioner Wimberly said he concurred with Commissioner Munoz. He said he remembered
the prior approval and that the applicant knew what was required.
Commissioner Oaxaca said he agreed. He said these are standard fees that are applicable to
any project.
Vice Chairman Fletcher said he agreed and that these are-standard fees and conditions.
Chairman Howdyshell said this was approved by resolution a year ago and it was clear what the
requirements were.
Mr. Flower recommended that Section 5 of the draft resolution be changed as follows:
"Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, this Commission hereby approves the amendment of Engineering
Condition, number 2 for DRC 2010-00868 to state as follows:
"'An in-lieu fee for the future construction of street •
improvements along the frontage of 13249 Arrow Route must
be paid prior to building permit issuance.
B-6
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONGA Page 7
Motion: Commissioner Munoz moved to approve the draft Resolution #13-21 with the change
recommended by Mr. Flower. Seconded by Commissioner Wimberly. Carried 5-0
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2013-00034 (MODIFICATION) - VERIZON
WIRELESS-A request to modify a previous approval(DRC2011-00688)for the site and
architectural review of a 45 foot tall (top of branches at 50 feet) major wireless
communication facility on the site of the Sacred Heart Catholic Church within the
Regionally Related Commercial (RRC) Development District and the Medium (M)
Residential Development District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (South Overlay)at 12676
Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-211-02, 24 and 25 and 0227-221-01 and 02. Planning
Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class
3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the installation of small
new equipment and facilities in small structures.
Commissioner Munoz recused himself from the public hearing because of the possibility of a
• conflict of interest due to his employment with AT&T, which provides similar telecommunication
services. He left the Council Chambers at approximately 9:25 PM.
Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He
states there was new correspondence from the public, which had been placed before the
Commissioners in support of the project(copy on file).
Mr. Flower said the Federal Communications Act restricts cities' ability to limit these facilities
because of emissions/radio frequency health concerns.
Fiona Hillyer for Verizon Wireless thanked the Commission and staff for the prior approval. She
said they worked with the church and school to find an alternative location. She said they concur
with the staff report. She said the coverage issue is related to both voice and data.
Chairman Howdyshell opened the public hearing.
Scott Nichols representing 40 parents, submitted a letter(copy on file) detailing the issues and
arguments. He maintained that if any provider can fill the gap then there is no significant gap.
Mr. Flower said gap analysis is done provider by provider.
Yesenia Olagu said she is a parent of a child at the school and presented a petition of local
residents who oppose the project. She asked the Commission to deny approval because she said
there is no coverage gap and she asked the Commission to revoke the prior permit for lack of
notification.
Gail Olague said she has been a student at Sacred Heart for 4 years and is.upset and does not
• want to change schools. She said cell towers give off radiation.
B-7
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONGA Page 8
Kurt Kumar said he opposed the project because there is no gap in coverage and parents were
brought in late. He said the applicant can upgrade the coverage on another tower. He asked for
the prior approval to be revoked.
Armando Ochoa said she supported denial of the modification and revoking the prior approval
because parents were not notified and she said there is no evidence the tower is safe.
Derrick Robertson said he recommended denial for health concerns and no lack of coverage.
Gabriel and Joshua Paris asked the Commission to deny the project and revoke original approval
based on failure to notify parents. He said the Bishop refused to meet with parents. He said there
is no coverage gap and the site is not needed.
Jackie Alkhouri asked for denial because of uncertain future health problems and no reception or
drop call issues.
Richard Carets asked for denial for health concerns and did not believe the FCC's guidelines.
Arlene Vergara asked for denial. She said there is no coverage gap and the facility is .
unnecessary and unsightly. She said radiation can lead to cancer and that other sites are
available.
Natzllely C. de Vaca asked for denial because a disguised tree is disgraceful and the need to
protect the children.
Kiera Hoyle asked for denial. She said coverage is fine and that she has fear of the greater risk.
Joe Kuskie asked for approval of the north end location.
Larry Meyer said not everyone at Sacred Heart is opposed. He said everyone is speaking about
health even although they cannot discuss health. He said if this location is not approved, the
tower will end up closer. He said that Verizon is a business and would not spend money if it did
not have to. He said the facility next door is no closer than the one being proposed.
Agnes Morales requested denial of the project and revocation of the previous approval. She said
they were never notified of negotiations between the church and Verizon. She said the diocese
has 10 other contracts for towers on other school properties. She said there are long term effects
of radio frequency.
Father Benedict, Pastor of Sacred Heart, said the prior cell tower decision was already in place
prior to his coming to the church. He.said the Church and school are one, and not divided. He
said cell towers and emissions do not constitute health hazards.
Sandra Diaz said there are no coverage gaps or dropped calls and that there is published
information about adverse health effects. •
Isabell Montanez asked for denial for safety reasons.
B-8
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
RANCHO APRIL 24, 2013
CUCAMONGA Page 9
Tony Morales said it is safe to have this and asked the Commission to approve the modification
request. He said the diocese met with parents and Verizon to move the facility further from school
to address their concerns. He said the American Cancer Society says cell towers are safe next to
schools. He said the new location is more aesthetically pleasing and the income is needed.
Emma Alcantara asked for denial.
Chairman Howdyshell closed the public hearing at 10:40 PM.
Mr. Flower noted the requests for the existing approval to be revoked. He said that issue was not
noticed and therefore the Commission cannot address that at this time.
Commissioner Wimberly said this application is to modify a previous approval and move the site.
He said denial does not affect the prior approval. Prior approval leaves the cell site in the initial
location. He said installation of these towers is pretty standard. He said they could not address
the lack of dialogue between the diocese and the parents norcan the Commission address health
issues. He said he would support the application.
• Commissioner Oaxaca said that he is a parishioner of Sacred Heart and that he is very familiar
with the church and volunteers there. He said he is frustrated because the real issue is not what
is before the Commission. He said the parents feel they have not been heard by their church. He
said he cannot address health effects and even if he could, he was not sure that would change
theirminds. He said the City's ordinance does not give the Commission away to address service
gaps and that it is up to the provider to determine. He said the Commission can only look at
aesthetics and if it meets our standards. He said it does. He said the proposed location is the
best option.
Vice Chairman Fletcher said the comments were well taken. He said the parents are passionate
about safety of their children and the health issues maybe fear of the unknown. He said-the City
has processed many of these requests. He said the Commission cannot consider revoking the
prior CUP. He said businesses do not spend money if there is no need for it. He said he is in
support.
Chairman Howdyshell said she concurred with the Commissioners. She said the project is fully
entitled. She thanked the parents, as they are stakeholders at the school and church. She said
the lack of communication between the school and parents is not before us;the standards have
been met.
Motion: Commissioner Fletcher moved to approve the draft Resolution #13-20. Seconded by
Commissioner Oaxaca Carried 4-0-1 (Munoz recused).
VIL COMMISSION CONCERNS/HISTORIGPRESERVATION
• AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Howdyshell announced that the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library won a National
Medal for Museum and Library Service. She noted that the Planning Department and the
B-9
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
WNaHO APRIL 24, 2013
CMAMONo" Page 10
Commission partnered with the library on several of their projects. She said it is the nation's
highest honor conferred on museums and libraries for service to the community
VIII: ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM
•
•
B-10
STAFF REPORT
• PL,,NNING DEPARTMENT
Date: May 8, 2013 RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager
By: Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner
Subject: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2013-00101 AND ADDENDUM TO THE
GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR)
(SCH #2000061027) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A supplemental update to
the Development Code Update (DRC2010-00571) to amend Article II (Land Use and
Development Procedures), Article III (Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses and Development
Standards), Article IV (Site Development Provisions), Article V (Specific Use
Requirements), Article VII (Design Standards and Guidelines) and Article VII (Glossary)
of Title 17 (Development Code) as well as a proposed addendum to the General Plan
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR). This action will be forwarded to
the City Council for final action.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following
• recommendations to the City Council:
1. Adoption of an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report for
Development Code Amendment DRC2013-00101; and
2. Approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2013-00101.
BACKGROUND: On July 18, 2012, the City Council, on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, adopted the City's updated Development Code. The updated Development Code
became effective on September 4, 2012. At the City Council hearing, staff proposed to present
Code updates on a regular basis to deal with issues that were discovered after the Code became
effective. In December, the City Council, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
adopted the first supplemental updates to the Development Code.
The changes proposed at this time are mostly procedural in nature. They would: (1) reinstate
development standards that were unintentionally omitted; (2) correct errors in translation of the
allowed land use tables; (3) incorporate required changes consistent with State Law (AB 1616); (4)
reinstate land uses because of translation errors and (5) clarify existing regulations.
AB 1616, the California Handmade Food Act became effective January 1, 2013. This law allows
low risk foods, known as cottage foods, to be made in private homes and sold to the public.
Examples of cottage foods include baked goods without cream, custard or meat fillings; candy,
dried fruit and pasta; jams, jellies, and preserves; nut mixes and popcorn. Cities are required to
allow cottage food operations as a permitted use in residential areas and allow for the retail sales
from residential properties of cottage foods.
•
Item C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE DRC2013-00101 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
May 6, 2013
Page 2 •
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: Staff recommends the changes to the Development
Code summarized below. Attachment 1 of the Resolution prepared for the Commission's
consideration includes the actual text changes to the Development Code. Typographic errors are
not included in the summary of proposed changes, but are included in the body of Attachment 1.
Article II Land Use and Development Procedures
1. Large Family Day Care. Amend Table 17.14.060-1 to include Large Family Day Care
applications as a Planning Director review. Amend Section 17.16.025 to include Large
Family Day Care applications in public noticing requirements. Large Family Day Care
applications will require noticing to property owners within 100 feet of the subject property.
These requirements were in the previous version of the Code and were unintentionally
omitted.
2. Appeal Authority. Amend Section 17.14.070 to include in the text that Historic Preservation
Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. This is a clarifying amendment
to make the text of this section match the associated table.
3. Minor Exception. Amend Section 17.16.110 E to clarify the findings that are required to
approve the minor exception. These modifications are based on feedback from staff that the
current required findings do not adequately correlate to the types of allowed minor
exceptions.
4. Minor Design Review. Amend Section 17.16.130 C to clarify that a project can be referred to •
committees (Grading, Technical and Design Review) if necessary. This revision is based on
staff input that the current language is not clear to read and interpret.
Article III Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses. and Development Standards
5. Allowed Use Modifications. Amend allowed use regulations in Table 17.30.030-1 primarily
due to translation of new uses as follows:
• Medical Services, General allowed as a permitted use in the CC District.
• Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities—Small allowed as a permitted use in the RRC
District.
• Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities—Large allowed as a conditionally permitted use in
the RRC District.
• Family Day Care Home, Large will include a footnote that it is a conditionally permitted
use, but requires a Large Family Day Care Permit, rather than a Conditional Use
Permit.
6. Allowed Use Provisions. Amend Section 17.30.040 to require that unless specifically
permitted, all business must be conducted within an enclosed building. This provision was
previously in the Code and was unintentionally omitted.
•
C - 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE DRC2013-00101 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
May 8, 2013
• Page 3
7. Allowed Use Descriptions. Amend Section 17.32.020 as follows:
• Amend the definition of a Home Occupation to include Cottage Food Uses, consistent
with State Law (AB 1616).
• Amend the definition of Residential Care Facility to care for more than 6 persons.
Currently, Residential Care Facilities are defined as caring for 6 or more people and
Residential Care Homes are defined as caring for up to 6 people. This has created a
conflict if a Residential Care use is proposed for exactly 6 people.
• Amend the definition for Animal Keeping to clarify that the keeping of poultry for egg
production is for personal consumption only. This is designed to prevent poultry keeping
in residential zones for commercial egg production.
8. Residential Development Standards. Amend Table 17.36.010-1 as follows:
• Revise the minimum square footage requirements for multi-family dwelling units. When
the table was recreated in the new Code, this section was not transferred correctly, and
the minimum square footage required based on the number of bedrooms is not
accurately listed.
• Delete the private open space requirement for VL and L zones. This standard is
designed for multi-family developments, which are not allowed in these zones.
• • Re-locate Multi-family amenity standards as they are currently written from
Section 17.122.040. These are erroneously located within the Foothill Boulevard
Design Guidelines. .
9. Miscellaneous Residential Development Standards. Amend Section 17.36.010 E to:
Reinstate requirements for slope planting in rear yards. This was required in the old Code
and unintentionally omitted during the Code update.
10. Miscellaneous Industrial Development Standards. Amend Table 17.36.040-2 to label the
street type of "local" to "local/collector" for clarification. Streetscape setbacks for local and
collector streets are identical, but collector streets were not listed on the table.
11. Height Exceptions for Ancillary Equipment. Amend Section 17.36.040 D to allow height
exceptions for ancillary equipment in the MH/HI and HI zoning districts with either a Minor
Exception or Conditional Use Permit. This modification will allow accessory equipment
necessary for development to be permitted with discretionary review and conditions of
approval.
Article IV Site Development Provisions
12. Accessory Structures. Amend Table 17.42.040-1 as follows:
• To allow for pool equipment under 6 feet in height (i.e. pool pumps, filters and heaters)
to be placed within the side and rear yard setbacks.
• 0 To allow outdoor entertainment features less than 6 feet in height to be placed within
the side and rear yard setbacks.
C - 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE DRC2013-00101 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
May 8, 2013
Page 4 •
13. Synthetic Turf. Amend Section 17.56.050 to reinstate development standards for synthetic
turf from the previous version of the Code. These standards were unintentionally omitted.
14. Outdoor Recreation Courts. Amend Section 17.58.050 to reinstate lighting standards (height
and shielding) for outdoor recreation courts (i.e. tennis or basketball) on residential
properties. These standards were unintentionally omitted from the Code.
15. Garage Size and Tandem Parking. Amend Section 17.64.040 B as follows:
• To define a two-car garage size standard of 10 feet by 20 feet. This was unintentionally
omitted from the Code.
• To allow for tandem parking as additional parking and.not allowed to be counted toward
minimum parking requirements. This is based on past practice and staff input.
16. Double Striping of Parking Spaces. Amend Section 17.64.080 A 1 to require all open parking
stalls to be double striped. This was unintentionally omitted from the Code.
17. Recreational Vehicles. Amend Section 17.68.060 to clarify regulations regarding the parking,
storage, and use of recreational vehicles as follows:
• To revise the definition of recreational vehicles to include only vehicles designed for
temporary dwelling. Items not designed for temporary dwelling (i.e. golf carts, dune
buggies, etc.) should be defined as portable recreational equipment. •
• To clarify that only one recreational vehicle per parcel is allowed to be grandfathered.
• To increase the time limit for recreational vehicles to be parked unscreened from 48 to
72 hours for consistency with other parking regulations and to allow for additional time
for loading/unloading activities.
• To prohibit the occupancy of recreational vehicles except in designated RV parks or
camping areas to address code enforcement issues with recreational vehicles being
used as dwelling units.
Article V Specific Use Requirements
18. Adult Entertainment. Amend Section 17.86.030 to rename Adult Entertainment Zoning
Permit to Adult Entertainment Permit and indicate that the approval authority is the Planning
Commission, not the Planning Director, to be consistent with Table 17.14 060-1 and
Section 17.20.020.
19. Cottage Food Industries. Amend Chapter 17.92 to allow for cottage food uses within
residential properties with a Home Occupation Permit, consistent with State law, as follows:
• To allow for one employee, other than occupants of the house, to work at the residence.
• To allow retail sales on-site from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Article VIII Glossary •
20. Universal Definitions. Amend Chapter 17.126 as follows:
C- 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE DRC2013-00101 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
• May 8, 2013
Page 5
• Add a definition for Second Dwelling Unit.
• Modify the definition of Lot Coverage to only include eaves greater than 24 inches.
• Modify the definition of Recreational Vehicles to be consistent with Section 17.68.060.
• Add a definition for Portable Recreational Equipment.
21. Sian Definitions. Add a definition and graphic for Linear Frontage in Chapter 17.136 for
clarity in calculating linear frontage for sign area.
In addition, any spelling, grammatical and formatting errors that have been discovered since the
publishing of the Development Code will be corrected.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000061027) has been prepared. This Development Code
Amendment does not propose any substantial changes in the City's development regulations that
were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR or that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. As a consequence, an addendum is the appropriate level
of environmental review. The addendum is provided and shown as Attachment B of the Resolution
prepared for the Commission's consideration.
• NOTICE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65090, this item was advertised 19 days in
advance as a public hearing (1/8 page ad) in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. No
individual notice to property owners was provided.
Respectfully submitted,
Candyce Bur tt
Planning Manager
CB:JN/ge
Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of DRC2013-00101
•
C - 5
RESOLUTION NO. 13-22
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2013-00101,A SUPPLEMENTAL
UPDATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment
DRC2013-00101 fora supplemental update to the City's Development Code found in Title 17 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
2. On May 8, 2013,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
• 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 8, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City's Development Code
that implements the policies of the General Plan, in July 2012. The new Development Code
became effective on September 4, 2012.
b. Based on feedback received since the effective date of the Development Code,the
City prepared a set of amendments (the"Amendments"),which is included as Attachment A to this
Resolution and is hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
C. Development Code Amendment DRC2013-00101 conforms to and does not
conflict with the General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof, and will
provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.
d. The City has prepared an Addendum (the "Addendum") to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2000061027) (the "Final EIR"),
attached hereto as Attachment B to this Resolution,which confirms that the environmental impacts
stemming from Development Code Amendment DRC2012-01056 were adequately addressed in the
Final EIR and that a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is not required for the Development
Code Update. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act, its implementing regulations at 14 California Code of Regulations §
15000 et seq., and the City's local CEQA guidelines (collectively "CEQA").
•
C - 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-22
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT - DRC2013-00101 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
May 8, 2013
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the •
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Development Code
Amendment DRC2013-00101.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of May 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: •
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
2
C - 7
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• Staff is recommending the following amendments to the Development Code. These
amendments are shown in track changes as excerpts from relevant sections of the
Development Code with new language shown with underlined text and existing language to be
removed shown with strike out text.
Article II Land Use and Development Procedures
Chapter 17.14 General Application Processing Procedures
Section 17.14.060 Approving Authority
TABLE 17.14.060-1 APPROVING AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS
Mo
%;,
'.k"'.� w
DS�f24���.✓��`��. �t�r
Official Code Interpretation F
Plan Check/Zoning Clearance F
Home Occupation Permit F
• Sign Permit F
Temporary Use Permit F
Tree Removal Permit F
Uniform Sign Program F
Similar Use Determination F
Reasonable Accommodation F
Site Development Review F
Minor Exception F
Conditional Use Permit F
Minor Design Review F
Hillside Development Review F
Large Family Day Care Permit F
Mills Act R R F
Landmark Designation R R F
Certificate of Appropriateness R F
Certificate of Economic Hardship R F
Entertainment Permit R F
Design Review R F
Variance R F
Atachment A
C - s
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
� ��f `a Y.�9iFl YM t N �dR1C0111nIM�l1Q��- h 1 f. #� .;.✓'�� •
,��='7 .:,�;� "P,!'Rntlt7edslontAddrpBod�,"s ucr ,nY ,,1
x Y
Adult Entertainment Permit R Y F
Tentative Subdivision Map(see Title 16) R F
Planned Community R R F
Specific Plan R R F
Prezoning R R F
Development Code/Zoning Map R R F
Amendment
Development Agreement R R F
General Plan Amendment R R F
Section 17.14.070 Appeals
A. Appeal Authority. Any interested person may appeal any action of the Planning
Director, Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission made pursuant
to this Article to the designated appeal authority listed in Table 17.14.070-1 (Appeal
Authority)within ten (10) days from the date of the action. Actions by the City Council
are final and no further administrative appeals are available.
Chapter 17.16 Planning Director Decisions •
Section 17.16.025 Director Determination Process (with Notice)
B. Purpose. Certain administrative permits and entitlements decided by the Planning
Director require a notice to neighboring property owners.
C. Applicability. Notice for Director Determination shall be provided for the following
applications:
1. Tree Removal Permit(only if six [6] or more)
2. Minor Exceptions
3. Conditional Use Permits
4. Large Family Day Care
D. Notice of Application. Notice of the filing of an application for those applications
identified in Subsection B above shall be mailed to persons owning property within
six hundred sixty feet (660') of the project site; in the case of tree removal permits or
minor exceptions, notice is only required to adjacent properties. For large family day
care permits, notice is required one hundred feet (100') of the project site. The notice •
shall specify that the application will be decided by the City following an open public
C - 9
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
comment period where comment is received on or before a date specified in the
• notice which shall be ten (10) days after the date of mailing. This notice shall also
include an explanation of appeal rights.
E. Decision. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications
listed in this Section. Decisions shall be based on standards and criteria set forth
within this Code and shall be accompanied by brief, written findings and a
determination. Planning Director decisions listed in Subsection 17.16.025.B
(Applicability) above may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
Section 17.16.080 Tree Removal Permit
D. Permit Requirements.
1. No person, firm, or corporation shall remove, relocate, or destroy any
heritage tree within the City limits, including an applicant for a Building
Permit, without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit from the Planning
Director.
2. No Tree Removal Permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree
on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless all
discretionary approvals have been obtained from the City, or unless an
emergency waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection 17.16.080.H
(Emergency Waiver).
• 3. No tree designated as a historic landmark shall be altered, removed,
relocated, or destroyed by any person, firm, or corporation without first
obtaining both a Certificate of 6enzpiianea Appropriateness and a Tree
Removal Permit. Alternation, removal, relocation, or destruction of trees
designated as historic landmarks may require a Certificate of Compliance
even if exempt from the requirement for a tree removal permit under this
Section.
Section 17.16.110 Minor Exceptions
A. Purpose. Exceptions may be needed to certain provisions to allow creative design
solutions and to accommodate unique site conditions.
B. Applicability. A Minor Exception may be granted to modify certain requirements of
this Code, as listed in Table 17.16.110-1 (Standards Subject to Exception).
Exceptions do not apply to land use and are not intended to waive a specific
prohibition or procedural requirement. Additionally, a Minor Exception may be
granted for exemptions from development standards for the repurposing or reuse of
industrial warehouse and other large footprint buildings for alternative uses not
envisioned when the structure was originally built, provided the use satisfies any
allowed use and permit requirements provided in Section 17.30.030 (Allowed Land
Uses and Permit Requirements).
•
C - 10
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
TABLE 17.16.110-1 STANDARDS SUBJECT To EXCEPTION
r t'yyra
'AA dttl' s.�i,gt_811d8fd
,cws ..._u.i.,r,
Fence height 2-foot increase
Parking or loading spaces—Number required 25%
Setbacks (reduction) 10%
Maximum lot coverage (increase) 10%
Maximum height(increase) 10%
C. Review Process. An application for a Minor Exception shall be filed with the
Planning Department in a manner prescribed by the Planning Director with the
required fee as established by City Council resolution.
D. Public Notice. The Planning Director shall, not less than ten (10) days before
rendering a decision, provide for public comment through notice to adjacent property
owners of the pending application.
E. Findings. The Planning Director shall approve or approve with conditions, an
application for an exception after finding all of the following. If the Planning Director
does not make all of these findings, he/she shall deny the Minor Exception.
1.
The Minor •
Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan
or development agreement.
2. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land
uses in the surrounding area.
3.
public plazas). The proposed exception to the specific development
standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with
the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions.
4. The Ggranting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or
materially inlurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. adyefsely-a4e6t
plan eF development agFeement.
•
C - 11
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
F. Conditions. In approving a Minor Exception, the Director may impose any
reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings
required, as well as any performance criteria and development standards contained
within this Code.
Section 17.16.130 Minor Design Review
F. Review Process.
1. An application for a Minor Design Review shall be filed with the Planning
Department in a manner prescribed by the Planning Director with the required
fee as established by City Council resolution.
2. The Planning Director shall be the approving authority for Minor Design
Reviews. The procedure for review and action shall be as provided in this
Section.
days pF'eF to the FneetiRgs.
• 43. All development proposals submitted pursuant to this Section may be
reviewed by the TeGhRiGal, Design, and GFadinq ollowinq
committees: (1) Design Review Committee — architecture and site planning;
(2) Grading Committee — grading and drainage; and (3) Technical Review
Committee—compliance with technical code requirements. If reviewed by any
or all of the aforementioned committees, each committee shall make a
recommendation on each project for consideration.
4 Upon acceptance of a complete application, projects subject to Section
17 16 130 F 3 shall be scheduled on the first available agenda for committee
reviews The applicant and any persons requesting notice will be notified at
least ten (10) days prior to the meetings.
5. The Design Review Committee shall review the project design submittals and
make recommendations to the Planning Director based on:
L Design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable elements of the Citys General Plan, design guidelines of
the appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for
specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas,
specific plans, community plan, boulevards, or planned developments.
ii. The design and layout of the proposed development will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring,
• existing, or future developments, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
C - 12
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
iii. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain •
the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by
this Section and the General Plan of the City.
iv. The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and the visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color
that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably
adequate level of maintenance.
6. Grading Committee. The Grading Committee will consider items such as, but
not limited to, cut and fill areas, drainage and flood control facilities, erosion
control, retaining walls, and the effect of proposed grading on adjacent
properties. This committee will determine if the grading plan meets City
grading guidelines and policies. The decision of the Grading Committee will
be forwarded to the Planning Director and will be based on criteria contained
in the City's Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 17.52 (Hillside
Development Standards).
7. Technical Review Committee. Review by this committee will consider items
such as, but not limited to, circulation, street improvements, right-of-way
dedication, utility easements, grading, drainage facilities, storm drain
improvements, California Building Code requirements, security, fire flow,
emergency access, location of fire hydrants, water and sewer line
connections 'and sizing, water pressure, permit fees, streetscape and •
landscape standards, setbacks, parking, and requirements for environmental
processing. The committee will require changes in any development for
compliance with adopted codes and standards. The committee may also
make recommendations to the Planning Director.
Article III Zonina Districts, Allowed Uses. and Development Standards
Chapter 17.30 Allowed Land Use by Base Zoning District
Section 17.30.030 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
C - 13
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• TABLE 17.30.030-1 ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BY
BASE ZONING DISTRICT
,'��,:yl�Y«� x``!x'
.Li.'C ytr
yy.
x 'ts f3 'rTxP7^4 Oi1�
+ �PR 41 * T4�. df: g'✓:; an {7�:R.i_« K�'P�'i .u�,,`ri�ry.-y(^re
z'.yVi',vt
:
Adult Day Care P P P P P P P N N I N N N N N N N N N N P N N
Home
Caretaker C C C C C C C P P P N N N NC C C C P C P P
Housing
Dwelling, Multi- N N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Family
Dwelling, Second
Unit 1'I P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N
Dwelling, Single- P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N
Family
Dwelling, Two- N N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Family
Emergency N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N C N N N N N N
Shelter
• Family Day Care C C C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N
Home, Largev
Family Day Care P PP P P P P N N .N N N N N I N N N N N P N N
Home, Small
Guest House P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Group C C C C C C C C C C C N C N N N N N N C N N
Residential
Home
Occupation(E) P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N
Live-Work N N N N N N P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Facility
Manufactured P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N
Home 13I
Mobile Home
Park 131 C C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Residential Care N N N C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Facility
Residential Care P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N
Home
Single-Room
Occupancy N N N P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Facility
•
C - 14
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
i" , YJ � F Y'v '�- a .c' zNr1 1 �'i e i� •v w,e b � '>;.'�
.`� isiz6r
'` f j �J �' .'� i. fi fW s� V� d 2� Ot F W r •YNIf.V1�
Transitional p p p p p p p N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N
Housing
a. Y e i #2 r —s°r 'A�f
:Jblt➢1'ICUlttll'11'a11dMkBa{ ld:Uslty,'s •,,�.. .�',! n�;_,+�+4&..r
Agricultural Uses N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N I P P
Animal Keepin94) p p p p p p p N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N
Domestic Pets
Animal Keeping, C C
Exotic Animals C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N
Animal Keeping, p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Insects
Animal Keeping,
Livestock P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Animals(4)
Animal Keeping, p N N N N N N N N N N I N I N N N N N N N N N N
Poultry
Equestrian
Facility, C N N N N N N N LLN N N N N C N C C
Commercial
Equestrian p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Facility Hobby
12 6-4,91
r 1-? FR u ,„•s, N
11.
1.
Assembly Use C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N N N N
Cemetery/ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N
Mausoleum
Community C C C C C C C C C C C C C N P P N N N C N N
Center/Civic Use
Community C C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N P N P P
Garden
Convention N N N N N N C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N N
Center
Golf Course/ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N C C
Clubhouse
Indoor
Amusement/ N N N N N N C N C C P P P N N N N N N N N N
Entertainment
Facility
Indoor Fitness
and Sports N N N N N N C C C C C C � C C C N N N N N N
Facility—Large —
Indoor Fitness
and Sports N N N N N N P P P P P C P P C C N N N N N N
Facility—Small — •
C - 15
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
,Y�S>�J�� �w '[dS.'�
• !S4 �^•^•oSS �iyy1. V
433? .� ,az�'i �r. Yi +i* 'th '.{�N4 . 3f.;c'tr `I � ''...
Library and C C C C C C P P P P N P N P C N N N Cs C C6 C6
Museum
Outdoor
Commercial N N N N N N C C C C N N C C C C N N N N N N
Recreation
Park and Public P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P
Plaza
Public Safety C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N C N N
Facility
Resource-
Related P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P
Recreation
School,
Academic C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N C N N
(Private)
School,
Academic P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N P N N
(Public)
School, College/
University C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N C N N
• (Private)
School, College/
University C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N C N N
(Public)
Schools,
Specialized N
Education and N N N N N C C C C C C C C C C N N N N N N
Training/Studio
Theaters and
Auditoriums N N N N N N C N N C N N P N N N N N N N N N
Tutoring Center— N N N N N N C C C C C C C C N N N N N N N N
Large
Tutoring Center— N N N N N N P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N
Small
i�♦� xr-u^m r ""
Broadcasting and
Recording N N N N N N N P N P N N N P P P N N N N N N
Studios
Park and Ride N N N N N N N C C C N N N N P P N N N N N N
Facility
Parking Facility N N N N N N P P N P C N C P C C C C N N CIC
Transit Facility N N N N N N N N N N I N N NJ N I C I C I ClC I N I N I N I N
•
C - 16
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
""! `��-�} Y 5 1 "'M ' 'Y x s 3 •c k fiY -^fY Irv,
N h
��. 4/ �
Nil
�o� sj�f �*�
i ��as hal E. _ �'L; IY. r(�'s }t. '. 'kms s T?E;. r.Vii.
Utility Facility and
Infrastructure— N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C N C C
Fixed Based
Structures(5)
Utility Facility and
Infrastructure— P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Pipelines (5)
Wind Energy
System— P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N
Small(10)
rR��,eervic�..and�Cd��•'s�x1A��.4�"�����'��^{�.'.ss,��.4+�: e}/'7 ,uA,•r X N. �4r�.i�3h �;:-wSY s�4 M
Adult Day Care N N N N N N C C C C N N N C C C N N N I N I N N
Facility
Adult-Oriented N
Business N N N N N N N N N N N N N A A A A N N N N
Alcoholic N N N N N N C N C C C C C C C C N N N N N N
Beverage Sales
Ambulance N N N N N N N C C C N N N N N C P P N N N N
Service
Animal Sales and N N N N N N P N P P P P N N N N N N N N N N
Grooming •
Art,Antique, N N N N N N P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N
Collectable Shop
Artisan Shop N N N N N N P I N P P P P P N N I N N N N N N N
Bail Bonds N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N
Banks and
Financial N N N N N N C C C P P P P P P P N N N N N N
Services
Bar/Nightclub N N N N N N C C N C C C C C N C N N N N N N
Bed and C C C N N N N N N N C C N N N N N N N N N N
Breakfast Inn
Building
Materials Store N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C P P N N N N
and Yard
Business N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N
Support Services
Call Center N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N C C I N N N N N N
Card Room N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NJ N N
Check Cashing N N N N N N P N P P N N N N P N N N N N N N
Business
Child Day Care NN N N N N C C C C C N C C C C N N N N N N
Facility/Center •
C - 17
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
OT"!
5V". gilg
002
Consignment N N N N N N C N C C N C N N N N N N N N N N
Store I I
Convenience N N N N N N P N P P N C N N C C N N N N N N
Store I I
I Ni 1 1, 1 RF
cremator) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N N
Services
Drive-in and
Drive-Through N N N N N N C C C C C N C C C C N N N N N N
Sales and
Service(8)
Equipment Sales N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N C P P N N N N
and Rental
Feed and Tack N N N N N N N N P P NIN N N N Ni N N N N N N
Store
Furniture,
Furnishing, and N N N N N N P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N
Appliance Store
Garden
Center/Plant N N N N N N P N P P P N P N N P N P P N P P
Nursery I I I
• Grocery Store/ N N N N N N P N P P P N P N N N N N N N N N
Supermarket I I I
Gun Sales N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N N N N N N N N
Hookah Shop N N N N N N C N N C N N N N N N N N N N N N
Home
Improvement N N N N N N P N P P P N P N C P N N N N N N
Supply Store I I
Hotel and Motel N N N N N N P C N P N N C C P N N N N N N N
Internet Caf6 N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N
Kennel, N N N N N N N N N C C N C N C C N N N N N N
Commercial
Liquor Store N N N N N N C N C C C C C N C C N N N N N N
Maintenance and
Repair, Small N N N N N N P N P P P N P P N P P C N N N N
Equipment I I I I I I I I I
Massage N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N
Establishment
Medical
Marijuana N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Dispensary
Medical
• Services, N C C C C C C P N P P N N P P P N N N N N N
Extended Care
C - 18
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
i7k
Medical
Services, N N N IN N N P P P P P P P P P P IN N N IN N N
General
Medical
Services, N N C C C C C C N C N IN N N P P IN N IN IN N N
Hospitals I I I
Mobile Hot Food N IN N N IN N N N N N IN N N N N IN N N N N N IN
Truck I I
Mortuary/Funeral N N IN IN N N N C CC IN N IN N N IN N N IN N N N
Home I I
Office, Busirfess N N N IN N N P P P P P P P PP P IN N N N N N
and Professional
Office, Accessory N N N IN N N P P P P P P P P P P IN N N IN N N
Pawnshop (7) N N N IN N N N N N C N N N N N N N IN N IN N N
Personal IN IN N N IN N P P P P P P P P P P N N N IN N N
Services
Restaurant, No
Liquor Service IN N IN N N N P P P P P P P P P P N N N N IN N
Restaurant, Beer N N IN IN N N P P P P P P P P P P IN IN IN N IN N
and Wine I
•
Restaurant, Full N N IN N N C C C C C C C C C C IN N N N N IN
Liquor Service I I I I I I I I I
Retail, Accessory N N N IN N N P P P P P N P P C C IN N I N I N N N
Retail, General N N N IN N N P N P P P P P N C C IN N N N N N
Retail, NNNNNNPNNPPNPNPININNNNNN
Warehouse Club I I I
Secondhand N N N N N N P N P P N N N N N N N IN N IN N IN
Dealer I I
Shooting Range N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N IN N IN N N
Smoke Shop(7) N N N N N N N N N C C N C N N N IN IN N IN N IN
Specialty Food N N N N IN N P N P P P P P N N N N IN N IN N IN
Store
Tattoo Shop(7) N N N N IN N N N N C N N N N N N N IN N IN N N
Thrift Store(7) N N N N IN N C N C C C N C N N N IN N IN N N
Veterinary C N N N IN !N MC N P P C C C N N P P P IN N N N
Facility
F W- 1
Auto Vehicle N N N � NjNjNjNjNjNj N � NjNjNjNj + � IN C N N N N
Dismantling
Auto and Vehicle NtNJN � N N NINICINCNINIPINICICININ IN NININ •
Sales and Rental
C- 19
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
ark ? '4i.� , zw yRn �ry ti�N' ftt � -S, r �<'. "� ;•W ,.%. {� c ,)t. Tr Vic .+ r 'T 'tor {
• `�s_k Yu. 4tK
�r t ' Lf .t 3
i Vf i
?,i. DiW Rei}"E �sY '..:t". �? .5'.s,'.s a`t,1?! '�ii '' k tt,' ta ..2"_t z'. tJ*`•. L N.
Auto and Vehicle
Sales, N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P N N N N N N N
Autobroker
Auto and Vehicle N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P N N N N N N
Sales, Wholesale
Auto and Vehicle N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C P P N N N N
Storage
Auto Parts Sales N N N N N I N N N P P N N P N N I N I N I N N N N N
Car Washing and N N N N N N N C C C C N C N N N N N N N N N
Detailing
Recreational N N N N I N N N N N N N I N N N N C C C N N N N
Vehicle Storage
Service Stations N N N N N N C C C P C N C C C C N N N N N N
Vehicle Services, N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N P P P N N N N
Major
Vehicle Services, N N N N N N N C C P N N C N P P N N N N N N
Minor
�gg±ir�E� wa xf... mV.. Y w,�-y'�j"- N. t.�. 'xu,atr Yw
IIfO1N��!!!!Yr_� � �
Fuel Storage and N N N Nm N N N N I N N N N N N N C C C N N N
• Distribution
Manufacturing, N N N N N N N N N I N I N N N NP P N N N N N N
Custom
Manufacturing, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N P N N N N
Heavy
Manufacturing,
Heavy-Minimum N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N
Impact
Manufacturing, N N N N N N N N N N N N N NP P N N N N N N
Light
Manufacturing, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N N N N
Medium e
Printing and N N N N I N N N N N P N N N N P P N N N N N N
Publishing
Recycling
Facility, N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N P P P N N N N
Collection
Recycling
Facility, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C N N N N
Processing
Recycling
Facility, Scrap N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N
• and Dismantling
Facility
C - 20
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Research and N N NINININ N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N
Development
Storage,
Personal Storage N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C c N N N N
Facility I I I I
Storage N N N N N N N N N c N N N N N C C C N N N N
Warehouse I I
Storage Yard N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N C P P N N N N
Wholesale,
Storage, and N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C P P N N N N
Distribution— N
Heavy
Wholesale,
Storage, and ]N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N N � N N
Distribution—
Light
Wholesale,
Storage, and N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P N N N N
Distribution—
Medium Ig'
Table Notes., •
(1) See additional regulations for second dwelling units in Chapter 17.100.
(2) See additional regulations for home occupations in Chapter 17.92.
(3) See additional regulations for mobile homes in Chapter 17.96.
(4) See Additional regulations for animal keeping in Chapter 17.88.
(5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas andfor liquid pipeline development require approval of
a Conditional Use Permit
(6) See additional regulations for adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult-oriented businesses are not
permitted west of Haven Avenue.
(7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in Chapter 17.102
(8) See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in Chapter 17.90.
(9) Not permitted within 300 feel of residentially zoned property.
(10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in Chapter 17.76.
(11) Family Day Care Home-Large requires avProval of a Lame Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit.
Section 17.30.040 Other Allowed Use Provisions
In addition to the allowed use provisions listed in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and
Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District), additional allowed use provisions are described
in the following articles and chapters of this Title.
07A. Specific Use Requirements. Article V (Specific Use Requirements) identifies
several use types that have special land use and/or development requirements.
Some of these use types have special requirements or regulations established by
state or federal law and others have special requirements based on local issues,
priorities, and preferences. Use regulations in Article V are intended to supplement
the allowed use regulations in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit
Requirements by Base Zoning District).
•
C - 21
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
B Outdoor Sales and Operations Unless permitted by definition in Chapter 17.32
• (Allowed Use Descriptions) or permitted as a temporary use with an approved permit
in Chapter 17.104 (Temporary Uses) all business shall be conducted within an
enclosed building.
&C. Temporary Uses. In addition to the permanent land use listings in Table
17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District),
Chapter 17.104 (Temporary Uses) establishes regulations for uses that are
temporary in nature.
Chapter 17.32 Allowed Use Descriptions
Section 17.32.020 Allowed Use Descriptions
A. Residential Uses.
12. Home Occupation. The conduct of a business within a dwelling unit or
residential site, employing occupants of the dwelling, with the business
activity being subordinate to the residential use of the property. Examples
include, but are not limited to, accountants and financial advisors, architects,
artists, attorneys; offices for construction businesses (no equipment or
material storage), and real estate sales. This category includes cottage food
uses, consistent with State Law.
• 16. Residential Care Facility. Consistent with the definitions of state law, a
residential care facility provides 24-hour nonmedical care for more than six
er—mere persons 18 years of age or older, or emancipated minors, with
chronic, life-threatening illness in need of personal services, protection,
supervision, assistance, guidance, or training essential for sustaining the
activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual. This
classification includes, but is not limited to, rest homes, residential care
facilities for the elderly, adult residential facilities, wards of the juvenile court,
and other facilities licensed by the State of California. Convalescent homes,
nursing homes, and similar facilities providing medical care are included
under the definition of Medical Services, Extended Care.
17. Residential Care Home. Consistent with the definitions of state law (Health
and Safety Code §1502), a residential care home is a home that provides 24
hour nonmedical care for six or fewer persons 18 years of age or older, or
emancipated minors, with chronic, life-threatening illness in need of personal
services, protection, supervision, assistance, guidance, or training essential
for sustaining the activities of daily living, or for the protection of the
individual. This classification includes rest homes, residential care facilities for
the elderly, adult residential facilities, wards of the juvenile court, and other
facilities licensed by the State of California. Convalescent homes, nursing
homes, and similar facilities providing medical care are included under the
definition of Medical Services, Extended Care.
•
C- 22
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
B. Agriculture and Animal-Related Uses.
1. Agricultural Uses. This use category includes farms, orchards, vineyards, •
livestock grazing, and hydroponics, including on-site sales of products grown
on site.
2. Animal Keeping. Care and maintenance of animals on private property. The
listing below provides a distinction between various types of animals related
to allowed use provisions in Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and
Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District). This classification is distinct
from Animal Sales and Grooming, and Equestrian Facility (commercial or
hobby). Also see Kennel, Commercial, which provides for the boarding of
animals (e.g., doggie day-care).
a. Domestic pets. Small animals (no larger than the largest breed of
dogs) customarily kept as pets within a dwelling unit. This
classification includes dogs, cats, fish, and birds (excluding large
tropical birds and poultry).
b. Exotic animals. Wild animals not customarily confined or cultivated by
man for domestic or commercial purposes, but kept as a pet or for
display, including wolf-dog hybrids, potbelly pigs, non-poisonous
snakes, reptiles, and large tropical birds (including peacocks).
C. Insects. Small arthropod animals confined or cultivated by man for
domestic purposes including but not limited to flies, crickets, •
mosquitoes, beetles, butterflies, and bees.
d. Livestock animals. Domesticated animals that may be kept or raised
in pens, bams, houses, and pastures for private use. Livestock
includes, but is not limited to, cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and equine.
e. Poultry. Domesticated birds (fowl) customarily kept for eggs or meat
for personal consumption. This classification includes chickens,
roosters, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea fowl, and Cornish game hens.
Chapter 17.36 Development Standards by Base Zoning District
Section 17.36.010 Development Standards for Residential Zoning
Districts
TABLE 17.36.010-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
F'- f - 5-ar.' q�,, 4 t'F. a Sr
f .y$tandardfY` p`.> u M� ..'' �'
t.u�ylAh� 4 a 10 � �� �;N�' ,%✓ i
`�' °, ���(�,y Q ` r .:•,i.: r':.�! ' Y 7.t <;ia %1V
`i W az{ra4:,.u� s. a ;x .++i ="Jb Y't•'6
Lot Area (minimum) 20,000 sf 7.200 sf 5,000 sf 3 ac 'I 3 ac I'I 3 ac 'I
Lot Area (minimum net avg) 22,500 sf 8,000 sf 5,000 sf 3 ac I'I 3 ac I'I 3 ac I'I
Lot Width (minimum) g0 ft(Y) 65 ft 1s) 50 ft 12) n/a n/a n/a
•
C - 23
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
�k.. a r a� �5tw• Y'Y _ �'y . <Wq Mile �¢=�
'�?v`� a7A�1�B�!,fC�r'ty'f.,_'#'r �"•F2�i.a f'�`'+3�,,.� '.+�rd.3Y�3 ra�s-�s;"+�.w.' �i...m«ki'• a t �'�Y!'k�it�-rk �"ir,�3.�$
Lot Width (corner lot) 100 ft 70 ft 50 ft n/a n/a n/a
Lot Depth (minimum) 200 ft 100 ft 90 ft n/a n/a n/a
Minimum Frontage 50 ft 40 ft 30 ft 100 It 100 ft 100 ft
Minimum Frontage (flag lot) 30 ft 20 ft 20 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft
,.'.^h. v ,.�vv �X-- rr P.F - i• t tit' +ev ••.`,,,
l t ltlnp YfII pK e6t
r 47.E w. s
Minimum Density(3) n/a n/a 4 du/ac 8 du/ac 14 du/ac 24 du/ac
Maximum Density 2 du/ac 4 du/ac 8 du/ac(4) 14 du/ac(4) 24 du/ac 30 du/ac
Front Yard ts� 42 ft Bj 37 ft(B) 32 ft(B) 37 ft 15) n/a n/a
Corner Side Yard(5) 27 ft 27 ft 22 ft 27 ft n/a n/a
Interior Side Yard 5 10/15 ft 5/10 ft 5/10 ft 10 ft(1) n/a n/a
Rear Yard (5) 60 ft 20 ft 15 ft 10 ft(') n/a n/a
At Interior Site Boundary
(Dwelling/Accessory NR(a) 15/56) 15/5 15/5�'I
Building)
..�,<��E ���yj='
} `�c+ .Se.fi .n i4:F..Z!Mi. �.. J Y�:'t -46'a`Cl. fh' y;'.
Primary Buildings 35 ft 35 ft 35 It 35 ft(10) 40 ft(10' 55 ft^I)10I
• -
0
, ; -z ,... s U
fN
Lot Coverage x 25% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Y
Private Open Space 300/150 sf 225/150 sf 150/100 sf 150/100 sf
(Ground Floor/Upper Story)
Open Space(Private and 65% 6040 40% 35% 35% 35%
Common)
Minimum Patio/Porch Depth E ft t" 6 ft t"� 6 ft ft t"� 6 ft l"t E ft I"
Ly2 tuW p d ro y`y �. ..;moi 'g r
M um t tl u, Sfr. a T t,A d t n - k„ via ii�1s � 4ra a✓`a
Single-Family 1,000 sf
(attached and detached)
Multi-Family(13)
550 sf
Efficiency/Studio
Multi-Family 113)
€fficiencylStadieOne 650 sf
Bedroom
Multi-Family(13
800 sf
9neTwo Bedroom
Three or More Bedrooms 950 sf
•
C - 24
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
DevNapmant Standart(l � VL' t'� �'" >L`'�":� ��'LM��'+ �-d W, 5 t 'y#,r MH N 'w •
tT ';�
Between buildings with no patio _ _ 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft
or recessed patio
Between patio fence/wall less _ _ 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft
than 5 feet in height
Between patio fence/wall more _ _ 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 It
than 5 feet in height
Between balconies above patio
fence/wall more than 5 feet in — — 20 It 20 ft 20 It 20 ft
height
Between a patio fence/wall and _ _ 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 It
a building wall
With common patio fence/wall — — 30 it 30 It 30 ft 30 ft
14, "(
Building to one-story detached
garage/carport or other 6 ft/15 ft 15 ft 15 15
accessory structure
Building to wall or curb at 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 It
project entry
Table Notes:
(1) On existing lots of record,parcels less than 3 acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at
the lowest end of the permitted density range. •
(2) Average width, which shall vary accordingly:
VL-+/-10 feet
L&LM-r/-5feet
(3) Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and arterials and in hillside areas shall be dependent on the
slopelcapacity factor contained in Chapter 17.52(Hillside Development Standards).
(4) Developing multi-family in the LM district and single-family in the M district at the maximum density requires compliance
with Standards for Higher Residential Densities as outlined in Subsection 17.36.0120.D.
(5) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and comer side yards. Setbacks are measured
between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards.
(6) Front yard setbacks in new residential developments may be reduced by up to 5 feet to allow for variation in structural
setbacks along the street.
(7) Add 10 feet if adjacent to VL,L,or LM district.
(8) Applies to buildings two stories and taller in height.Add 10 more feet for each story over two stories.
(g) In hillside areas,heights shall be limited to 30 feet.
(10) Limit one story within 100 feet of VL or L district for multiple-family dwellings.
(11) Free and clear of obstructions.
(12) Senior citizen projects are exempted from this requirement.
(13) To assure that smaller units are not concentrated in any one area or project, the following percentage limitations or the
total number of units shall apply: 10%for eKctency/studio and 35%for one bedroom or up to 35%combined. Subject to a
Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may authorize a greater ratio of efficiency or one-bedroom units when
a development exhibits innovative design qualities and a balanced mix of unit sizes and types.
(14) "Front"is defined as the face of the building or unit with the major glass area and/or major recreation area and may
include access to that private recreation area. This access may or may not relate to the primary entrance to the building
that faces the street or drive;therefore,some buildings may have more than one front.
E. Recreation Area/Facility. Where required, in the M. MH, and H residential districts,
the developer shall provide recreational amenities in conjunction with common open
space as follows:
1. Development consisting of thirty (30) units or less shall provide three (3) of the •
following recreational amenities:
C - 25
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• a Large open lawn area: one of the dimensions shall be a minimum of
fifty feet (50').
b. Enclosed tot lot with multiple play equipment.
C. Spa or pool.
d. Barbecue facility equipped with grill, picnic benches, etc.
2 Development consisting of thirty-one (31) units to one hundred (100) units shall
provide another set of recreational amenities as described in Subsection
17.122.040.M.1 above or equivalent, as approved by the Planning
Commission.
3 Development consisting of one hundred and one (101) units to two hundred
(200) units shall provide five (5) of the following recreational amenities, or
equivalent as approved by the Planning Commission:
a. Large open lawn: one of the dimensions shall be a minimum of one
hundred feet (100').
b Multiple enclosed tot lots with multiple play equipment. The tot lots
shall be conveniently located throughout the site. The number of tot
lots and their location shall be subject to Planning Commission review
and approval.
• C. Pool and spa.
d. Community multipurpose room equipped with kitchen, defined areas
for games, exercises, etc.
e. Barbecue facilities equipped with multiple grills, picnic benches. etc.
The barbecue facilities shall be conveniently located throughout the
site. The number of barbecue facilities and their locations shall be
subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
f. Court facilities (e.g., tennis, volleyball, basketball).
g. Jogging/walking trails with exercise stations.
4 For each one hundred (100) units above the first two hundred (200) units,
another set of recreational amenities as described in Subsection
17.122.040M.3 above shall be provided.
5. Other recreational amenities not listed above may be considered subiect to
Planning Commission review and approval.
6. Related recreational activities may be grouped together and located at any one
area of the common open space.
• 7. Dispersal of recreational facilities throughout the site shall be required for
development with multiple recreational facilities.
C - 26
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
All recreation areas or facilities required by this Section shall be maintained by
private homeowners associations, property owners or private assessment districts •
€F. Other Miscellaneous Residential Development Standards.
6. Roofing Materials. All new and existing development within Residential
Zoning Districts shall have roofing material made of tile, or the imitation
thereof, but not including composition shingles. Other roofing materials such
as metal, slate, or the imitation thereof, but not including composition
shingles, may be approved by the approval authority if it is determined that
the roof material enhances the building design. Any replacement of existing
roofing materials shall be consistent with the existing material or upgraded to
a higher quality roofing material. For example, a composition shingle roof
can be replaced with composition shingles or can be upgraded to higher
quality roofing material such as tile or slate.
7 Slope Planting. Slope banks 5 feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or
greater slope but less than 2:1 slope shall be, at minimum, irrigated and
landscaped with appropriate groundcover for erosion control. Slope banks 5
feet or greater in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be
landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance
as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of
slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub for each 100 square feet of
slope area and appropriate groundcover. In addition, slope banks in excess •
of 8 feet in vertical and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon
or larger size tree per each 250 square feet of slope area. Trees and shrubs
shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope
planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system
to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. Maintenance by a
Homeowners' Association may be required by the Planning Commission on
a case-by-case basis.
Section 17.36.040 Development Standards for Industrial Districts
D. Other Miscellaneous Industrial Development Standards.
1. Special Streetscape. Future development and redevelopment within industrial
areas shall be consistent with the special streetscape standards listed in
Table 17.36.040-2 (Streetscape Setback Requirements) and as depicted in
Figure 17.36.040-1 (Special Streetscape Requirements).
2. Special Building Height Standards. Building height limits shall not exceed the
height limits prescribed in the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility
Plan. For areas within the High Terrain Zone, the building height limit shall be
seventy feet (70'). Buildings or structures greater than seventy feet (70') in
height within the High Terrain Zone are subject to the ONT-IAC Project
Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
exception (Obstruction Evaluation - Form 7460). In cases where . the •
LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan permits heights greater
C - 27
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
than seventy feet (70'), building height limits shall be limited to maximum of
• height of seventy-five feet (75'), unless a Conditional Use Permit is granted
permitting heights greater than seventy-five feet(75').
3. Special Height Exceptions for Ancillary Equipment. Within the Minimum
Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) Districts, height
exceptions may be granted for ancillary equipment with special design and
landscape considerations as follows:
a. Maximum 90 feet with approval of a Minor Exception with the
additional findings that the ancillary equipment is designed in a
manner that integrates well within the subject site and existing
and/or proposed landscaping will buffer the views of ancillary
equipment from designated view corridors.
b. Maximum 120 feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit
with the additional findings with the additional findings that the
ancillary equipment is designed in a manner that integrates well
within the subiect site and existing and/or proposed landscaping
will buffer the views of ancillary equipment from designated view
corridors.
TABLE 17.36.040-2 STREETSCAPE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
rr�ilr—T
Moil
.,s
Major Arterial & Special 45 ft 45 ft 25 ft
Boulevard
Secondary 35 ft 35 ft 20 ft
Local/Collector 25 ft 25 ft 15 ft
Table Notes:
(1) The average depth shall be uninterrupted from the face of curb, except for sidewalks, pedestrian hardscape,plazas and
courtyards,and monument signs.
(2) Parcels less than 225 feet in depth from the ultimate curb face on special boulevards are not required to provide an
average depth of landscaping or building setback greater than 25 feet or 20'16 the depth of the property, whichever is
greater.
(3) As determined from ultimate two of curb.
(4) Average depth of landscaping must still be provided.
(5) Street frontage walls and fences over 3 feet in height are subject to building setbacks.
•
C - 28
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Article IV Site Development Provisions •
Chapter 17.42 Accessory Structures
Section 17.42.030 Permit Requirements and Exemptions
C. Exempt Structures. The following accessory structures are exempt from planning
entitlements provided they comply with listed requirements. Exempt accessory
structures may require Building Permits in keeping with the California Building Code
adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and placed in accordance with Table
17.42.040-1 (Development Standards for Accessory Structures).
1. All accessory structures that are less than one hundred twenty (120') square feet
in size with no portion of the structure equal to or greater than six feet (6') in
height.
2. Water features. A detached structure typically used for decorative or landscape
design purposes such as a fountain water wall, bird bath and similar features
that are less than one hundred twenty (120') square feet in size with no
portion of the feature equal to or greater than six feet(6') in height.
3. Play Equipment. Structures and surfaces used for recreational purposes
including play structures, tree houses, jungle gyms, and non-illuminated
sports courts such as tennis and basketball courts.
4. Deck/Patio. A detached porch or platform that is generally constructed with •
wood, concrete or stone that is above the grade or located over a basement
or story below.
5. Pool/Spa. Any structure intended for swimming or recreational bathing.
Swimming pool includes in-ground and above-ground structures and
includes, but is not limited to, hot tubs, spas, portable spas, and non-portable
wading pools.
6. Pool Accessories. Any structure for
entertainment or relaxation value, including but not limited to peel pumps
diving boards, slides, and grottos.
7. Outdoor Entertaining Features. Structures used for entertainment and outdoor
cooking such as built-in barbecues and fire pits.
8. Temporary, Portable Shade Structures. Shelters used for the storage of vehicles,
recreational vehicles, trailers, boats, self propelled equipment and bulky items
designed to be portable and/or collapsible constructed of canvas, vinyl,
aluminum, wood, or similar materials.
•
C - 29
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
TABLE 17.42.040-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
010
R ON
Solid Roof Structure Not permitted 5 ft(2) 5 ft 121131(4) Not permitted(5) (1)(2) 30% required yard area 16 ft
Open Roof Structure Not permitted 5 ft 5ft(3) Not permitted (1)(2) Na(8X8) 16 ft
Water Features No minimum 3 ft 5 ft Not permitted No Na 16 ft
minimum
Pools/spas Not permitted 5 ft(7) 5 ft(7) 5 ft 1't No 30% required yard area 5 ft
minimum
Pool Accessories Not permitted 5 ft 5 ft Not permitted No
minimum 30% required yard area Na
Play Equipment Not permitted 5 ft 5 ft Not permitted No Na n/a
W
minimum
Deck/Patio Not permitted 5 f 5 f Not permitted No n/a Na
minimum
Outdoor Entertainment Not permitted 5 ft 5 ft � m'ttedNo No
Features minimum191 minimum Na Na
Temporary, Portable
Shade Structures Not permitted 5 ft 5 f Not permitted Isi 30% re wired and area 10 ft
q Y
Table Notes:
(1) No minimum setback required. Accessory buildings may be attached to and hove a common wall with the main building or, when located as required
by this Chapter, may be connected to the main building by a breezeway.
(2) Accessory buildings not exceeding 6 feet in height at the highest point may be built to the side and/or rear property line,provided that the accessory
structure meets minimum building code requirements for distance between the accessory structure and the primary building.
(3) The 5-foot side yard setback requirement for solid and open roof structures applies when the structure is located within the rear yard setback area.
Otherwise, the some side yard setbacks as the primary structure apply(see Figure 17.42.040-2).
(4) For reverse corner lots, the street side yard setback shall be the some as the front yard setback for the adjacent key lot.
(5) Accessory structures with solid roofs that are less than 6 feet tall and 120 square feet in area can be located in the street side yard.
(6) Trellis-type and open-roof structures are exempt from lot coverage calculations.
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
(7) Measurement from wate/s edge. Related operating equipment(filters, oumos and heaters)not exceeding 6 feet in height can be located within the
rear,side or street side yard setback. shall be w fback q wiRifflum of 5 feet#9m oil side and Fear pFepefly knes.
(8) Accessory structure shall not exceed the overall lot coverage limitation for the property(see Chapter 17.36).
(9) If less than 6 feet in height, no minimum setback is required.If taller than 6 feet in height not allowed in street side yard area
n
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• Chapter 17.56 Landscaping Standards
Section 17.56.050 General Landscape Development Standards
D. Synthetic Turf. Synthetic turf may be used as a substitute for natural turf for the
purposes of water conservation. The following standards shall apply to the use and
maintenance of synthetic turf:
1. Synthetic turf shall consist of lifelike individual blades of grass that emulate real
grass in look and color and have a minimum pile height of 1-1/2 inches.
2. A proper drainage system shall be installed underneath to prevent excess
runoff or pooling of water.
3. Synthetic turf shall be installed and maintained to effectively simulate the
appearance of a well-maintained lawn.
4. The use of indoor or outdoor plastic or nylon carpeting as a replacement for
synthetic turf or natural turf shall be prohibited.
5. Synthetic turf shall be installed in combination with natural plant materials (e.g.
trees, shrubs and groundcover) to enhance the overall landscaping design.
9:E. Water Efficiency. If applicable, projects are required to comply with provisions within
• Chapter 17.82 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of this Article.
Chapter 17.58 Outdoor Lighting Standards
Section 17.58.050 General Lighting Requirements
D. Sports Fields/Outdoor Activity Areas. Where playing fields or other specialty
activity areas are to be illuminated, lighting fixtures shall be mounted, aimed, and
shielded so that the light falls within the primary playing area and no significant off-
site light trespass is produced. Additionally, the lights shall be turned off within one
hour after the end of the event.
E. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Wireless telecommunication facilities and
related equipment shall be unlit except as provided in Chapter 17.106 (Wireless
Communicator Facilities).
F. Maximum Height of Freestanding Outdoor Light Fixtures. The maximum height
of outdoor light fixtures on residential properties shall be twelve feet (12'). The
maximum height of freestanding outdoor light fixtures abutting residential
development shall be fifteen feet (16). Otherwise, the maximum height for
freestanding outdoor light structures shall be twenty feet (20'). Height shall be
measured from the finish grade, inclusive of the pedestal, to the top of the fixture.
• See Figure 17.58.050-2 (Shielding and Maximum Height of Freestanding Outdoor
C - 32
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Light Fixtures). Height limit for light fixtures in industrial areas is 25 feet. The height
of all outdoor light fixtures is measured from ground level to top of illumination fixture •
and does not include decorative elements attached to the top of the fixture.
Chapter 17.64 Parking and Loading Standards
Section 17.64.040 General Parking and Loading Requirements
B. Parking Space and Drive Aisle Dimensions.
1. When outdoors (e.g., parking lot), each parking space shall have a minimum size
of nine feet (9') by seventeen feet (17') with a required one foot (1') overhang
(e.g., over a curb stop) and shall be free of obstructions such as columns or
walls.
2. When Indoors or under a shelter (e.g. parking structure or carport/shade
structure), each parking space shall be ten feet (10') by twenty feet (20')
where columns or walls are located within the parking area.
3. Each loading berth shall be a minimum size of twelve feet(12') by thirty feet (30')
whether indoors or outdoors.
4. When garage parking is required, parking spaces shall be designed in a side by
side configuration with a minimum dimension of 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep
for each required parking space free and clear of obstructions. If tandem
parking is provided, only one space will count toward the minimum parking •
requirements.
Section 17.64.080 Parking and Driveway Design and Development
A. Surface Parking Area. All surface parking areas shall have the following
improvements:
1. Each required parking space and aisle, shall be graded, drained, and
surfaced so as to prevent dust, mud, or standing water and shall be identified
by pavement markings, wheel stops, entrance and exit signing, and
directional signs, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All new parking
spaces shall be painted with double stripe pavement markings.
•
C - 33
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• Chapter 17.68 Property Maintenance
Section 17.68.030 Vehicle Parking Limitation in Residential Areas
I. No trailer, semi-trailer, boat, or portable recreational equipment (e.g. jet skis or
snowmobiles) shall be parked or stored within the front yard, corner side yard, or
side yard abutting a street unless (1) it is not a commercial vehicle and is parked for
a temporary period of time not to exceed forty eightseventy-two (4872) hours; (2) it is
involved in loading or unloading activity; and (3) it is parked in compliance with any
other applicable City ordinance.
Section 17.68.060 Recreation Vehicle Parking and Storage
The parking and storage of recreational vehicles on residential properties, in all residential
districts, shall be subject to the provisions of this Section.
A. Recreational Vehicles Defined. For the purposes of this Section, "recreational
vehicles".shall mean a vehicle towed or self-propelled on its own chassis or attached
to the chassis of another vehicle with provisions for sleeping, cooking and/or
sanitation designed or used for temporary dwelling, recreational, or sporting
purposes. Examples include, but shall not be limited to, motor home, converted
trucks or busses, travel trailer, fifth wheel, toy hauler, mounted camper, camping
trailer,
or similar equipment provided that
such vehicles are not commercial vehicles or used for commercial purposes.
• B. Parking Limitation. Recreational vehicle parking shall only be permitted within an
enclosed garage, carport, or a similar structure, or if outdoors, in an authorized off-
street paved parking area. All other parking or storage shall be prohibited.
C. Access. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked in a way to render inaccessible a
required garage.
D. Authorized Parking Areas. Authorized outdoor parking areas shall be limited to the
locations and conditions described below.
1. Recreational vehicles may be parked or stored in side or rear yard areas,
provided that such areas are screened from view from the street, public right-
of-way, and adjacent properties by a permanent legally constructed and
maintained fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five feet (5')
in height.
2. Recreational vehicle parking areas within side and rear yards shall be limited
to five percent (5%) of the total lot area or five hundred (500) square feet,
whichever is greater, unless constructed pursuant to an approved Minor
Development Review.
3. Recreational vehicles may also be parked within public view in authorized
parking areas within the front yard, or corner side yard abutting a street, for
• temporary periods of time not to exceed #arty eightseventy-two (4872) hours,
except as noted in Subsection 17.68.060.D.4 below.
C - 34
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
4. Time limits established in Subsection 17.68.060.D.3 may be waived for one
recreational vehicle on a specific property when all of the following conditions •
can be demonstrated:
i. Current owner or resident has resided on said property since prior to
December 31, 1991.
ii. Current owner or resident has owned a recreational vehicle since prior
to December 31, 1991, while residing on the property.
iii. Property in question cannot reasonably accommodate recreational
vehicle storage in the side or rear yard.
iv. Recreational vehicle may only be parked or stored on a paved surface
located between the driveway and the nearest side property line.
V. Property in question is not located within the Planned Communities of
Caryn, Terra Vista, or Victoria.
E. Portable Recreational Equipment. Authorized parking areas for portable
recreational equipment shall be limited to the locations and conditions described
below:
1. Portable recreational equipment may be parked or stored within an enclosed
garage or within the side or rear yard areas provided that such areas are
screened from view from the street, public right of way, and adjacent •
Properties by a legally constructed fence, wall or equivalent screening
material at least five feet (5) in height.
2. Portable recreational equipment may also be parked within the front yard, or
corner side yard abutting a street, for temporary periods of time not to exceed
seventy-two (72) hours.
F. Parking Area Maintenance. All parking areas within public view from the street,
public right-of-way, or adjacent properties shall be surfaced with a permanent paving
material. Such areas shall be maintained in good usable condition, free of potholes
and broken sections to prevent the accumulation of mud, dust, and weeds, and shall
be kept free of debris, dirt, and other loose materials. RV parking areas shall be keep
free of contaminant discharge (oil stains and grease) and any discharge should be
cleaned from paved areas immediately to prevent discharge entering the stone drain
system.
G. Occupancy Prohibited. Recreational Vehicles shall not be used for the purpose of
temporary or permanent living, including but not limited to sleeping, cooking, bathing,
occupying as a dwelling, or any stay within the Vehicle not directly related to its
driving except in a designated public campground or other licensed private camping
facility, or in conjunction with an active construction site with a Temporary Use
Permit.
•
C - 35
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• Chapter 17.74 Sign Regulations for Private Property
Section 17.74.090 Allowed Temporary On-Site Sign Standards
This Section describes standards for temporary on-site signs. All temporary signs require a
temporary U68 sign permit prior to their establishment. Temporary signs may include, but are
not limited to, commercial signs for grand openings or for special product, sale, or event
advertising. All temporary signs must comply with the standards listed in Table 17.74.090-1
(Allowed Temporary On-Site Sign Standards)and are subject to the following:
Article V Specific Use Requirements
Chapter 17.86 Adult Business Uses
Section 17.86.030 Permit Requirements
It shall be unlawful to establish or operate, or cause or permit to be operated, any adult
entertainment establishment without first obtaining an adult entertainment zoning permit from
the Planning Dire6teFCommission consistent with requirements of Chapter 17.14 (General
Application Processing Procedures) and Chapter 17.2046
Planning Commission Decisions).
Chapter 17.92 Home Occupations
• Section 17.92.030 Development Standards
All home occupations shall comply with the following development standards:
A. Incidental Use by Nature. The use of the dwelling as a home occupation shall be
clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its
inhabitants. Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total square footage for the
dwelling or one room of the dwelling, whichever is less, shall be used for the home
occupation.
B. Employees. No persons, other than members of the family who reside on the
premises, shall be engaged in the home occupation activity. Off-site employees or
partners are not permitted, except for cottage food uses, consistent with State law.
C. Exterior Appearance. There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the
building or premises, or other visible evidence of the activity.
D. Sales. There shall be no sales of products on the premises, except produce (fruit or
vegetables)grown on the subject property or cottage food products. On site sales of
produce and cottage food products produced on site shall be limited to the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Off-site sales, including electronic and mail order commerce,
is permitted, consistent with the other standards of this Chapter.
E. Visitors and Customers. The use shall not allow customers or clientele to visit
• I dwellings unless this activity involves the sale of fruits and produce or cottage food
products or is approved by the Planning Director as part of a Home Occupation
C - 36
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Permit and is determined to fit within the residential character of the area (e.g., piano
lessons). •
F. Operation Standards. No equipment or processes shall be used on the subject
property that creates noise, smoke, glare, fumes, odor, vibration, electrical, radio, or
television interference disruptive to surrounding properties.
G. Accessory Structures. No home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory
building. Normal use of the garage may be permitted if such use does not obstruct
required parking. The use shall not involve storage of materials or supplies in an
accessory building or outside any structures.
H. Deliveries. Deliveries shall not exceed those normally and reasonably occurring for
a residence. Deliveries of materials for the home occupation shall not involve the use
of commercial vehicles, except for Fed Ex, UPS, or USPS-type home pickups and
deliveries. Off-site deliveries, such as to a post office box, are preferred.
I. Signs. No signs shall be displayed in conjunction with the home occupation and
there shall be no advertising using the home address.
J. Commercial Vehicles. No person shall park or store more than one commercial
vehicle or any commercial vehicle over 10,000 pounds licensed gross vehicle weight
per dwelling unit.
Chapter 17.104 Temporary Uses
Section 17.104.040 Standards for Specific Temporary Uses •
L. Trailff CeaGhesRecreational Vehicles or Mobile Homes on Active Construction
Sites. These are permitted as a temporary living quarters for security personnel or
temporary residence of the subject property owner, subject to the following
restrictions:
1. The Planning Director may approve a temporary traileF-living quarter for the
duration of the construction project or for a specified period, but in no event
for more than two (2) years. If exceptional circumstances exist, a one (1) year
extension may be granted, provided that the building permit for the first
permanent dwelling or structure on the same site has also been extended.
2. Installation of tFailefiseashesa temporary living quarter may occur only after a
valid building permit has been issued.
3. TraileFseashesTemporary living quarters permitted pursuant to this Section
shall not exceed a maximum gross square footage of six hundred fifty (650)
square feet in size (tongue not included).
4.
C- 37
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• Sestiew:
5. The temporary trailer coach installation must meet all requirements and
regulations of the Riverside San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health Services and the City Building and Safety Department.
6. Any permit issued pursuant to this Section in conjunction with a construction
project shall become invalid upon cancellation or completion of the Building
Permit for which this use has been approved, or the expiration of the time for
which the approval has been granted. At that time, trailers shall be removed
from the site.
Chapter 17.106 Wireless Communication Facilities
Section 17.106.030 Development Criteria
A. Screening and Site Selection Guidelines. The following screening and site
selection guidelines apply to all wireless communication facilities:
1. Stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred.
2. Wireless communication facilities shall be located where the existing
topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest
amount of screening. Where insufficient screening exists, applicants shall
• provide screening satisfactory to the Planning Director, or as otherwise
required herein.
3. Ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be located only in
close proximity to existing aboveground utilities, such as electrical towers or
utility poles (which are not scheduled for removal or undergrounding for at
least eighteen (18) months after the date of application), light poles, trees of
comparable heights, .and in areas where they will not detract from the
appearance of the city.
4. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the following order of
preference:
a. Collocated with existing wireless communication facilities.
b. On existing structures such as buildings, communication towers, or utility
facilities.
c. On an existing signal, power, light, or similar kinds of poles.
d. In industrial districts.
e. In commercial districts.
• f. In residential districts, subject to additional restrictions set forth herein.
C - 38
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
5. Major Wireless Communication Facilities are not permitted to locate within
three hundred feet (300') of any residential structure, within any residential •
district, or within three hundred feet (300') of any existing, legally established
Major Wireless Communication Facility except as follows:
a. When located on any existing nonresidential building or structure or on
any existing utility pole provided such location complies with all of the
following:
L The collocation is in full compliance with the California Public
Utilities Commission Joint Pole Association General Order 95,
Rule 94, and any other applicable state or federal regulations;
and
ii. Existing Major Wireless Communication Facility to be utilized
for collocation shall previously be granted with a Conditional
Use Permit or a Minor Development Review approval,
including modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit or
Minor Development Review; and
iii. All accessory equipment and enclosures shall be located
underground or screened from public view as approved in
writing by the Planning Director; and
iv. Unless shown in the submitted application documentation to
not be technically and/or commercially feasible, all antennas •
and/or antenna panels shall be flush mounted and limited in
number to that amount necessary to achieve the required
coverage described in said documentation.
b. The proposed facility will replace or modify an existing facility for
purposes of collocation.
c. The proposed facility will be designed and constructed in a manner to
allow for future collocation of an additional wireless communication
carrier provided the applicant submits written documentation that
shows:
L A more preferable location, as determined by reference to
Section 17.106.440030.A 4 cannot be reasonably
accommodated by the applicant due to technical requirements
of the proposed facility including, but not limited to, coverage
requirements imposed by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) or otherwise by law, or due to other factors
beyond the applicant's reasonable control.
d. For the purposes of this Chapter, all distances shall be measured in a
straight line without regard to intervening structures, from the nearest
point of the proposed Major Wireless Communication Facility to the
nearest property line of any residential land use, or to the nearest
point of another Major Wireless Communication Facility. •
C - 39
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• Article VII Desisan Standards and Guidelines
Chapter 17.122 Design Provisions by Development Type
Section 17.122.040 Foothill Boulevard
This section establishes parameters within which the community character for the entire Foothill
Boulevard Corridor can be created. To do so, a number of issues and design concepts have
been previously explored. However, at the core of all discussion and investigation has been the
attempt to define community character in an accurate, comprehensive, and pragmatic manner.
The Community Design Guidelines are primarily focused on the creation of aesthetic character.
The purpose is to create a visual environment that evokes a distinctive and unifying image,
which is unique to Rancho Cucamonga. To accomplish this task, the Foothill Boulevard Corridor
must first distinguish itself from other major thoroughfares in nearby communities and, second, it
must serve as a visually unifying concourse that links the entire community of Rancho
Cucamonga. Lastly, it is important to have a design statement for the Foothill Boulevard
Corridor with each contributing community design element skillfully orchestrated to promote a
contiguous, cohesive, community design image.
spaGe as fetlews-
•
pool.
PFev
17.4-2-2.040.A.4.1 abOVe, OF equivaleRt, as appFaved by the Plan"
3.1)6VOIOPMent GOR606tiRg of PMA h,--n,dm, d AM GRe (101) units to two hundFod (200)
# URdred feet{ )0+.
•
C -40
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
s:Feel aad spa.
abeye shall be PFevided.
Article VIII Glossary
Chapter 17.126 Universal Definitions
Section 17.126.020 Universal Definitions
Lot Coverage. The area of a lot covered by buildings including eaves greater than twenty four
(24) inches, projecting balconies, and similar features but excluding ground-level paving,
landscaping, open recreational facilities, and lattice patio covers. See Figure 17.126.020-8 (Lot
Coverage).
Second Dwelling Unit An attached or detached dwelling unit which provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons with permanent requirements for sleeping
eating cooking and sanitation sited on the same parcel as the primary dwelling unit. This •
C -41
Proposed Revisions to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
• definition includes granny flats, efficiency units and manufactured homes, pursuant to
Government Code section 65852 (i)(4).
Water Feature. A detached structure typically used for decorative or landscape design
purposes such as a fountain, water wall, bird bath and similar features.
Vehicle, Recreation. A vehicle towed or self-propelled on its own chassis or attached to the
chassis of another vehicle with provisions for sleeping, cooking and/or sanitation aad designed
or used for temporary dwelling, recreational, or sporting purposes. Examples linclude, but shall
not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel, toy hauler, mounted camper, camping
trailer, converted trucks and busses,
provided
that such vehicles are not commercial vehicles or used for commercial purposes.
Portable Recreational Equipment. A vehicular unit designed and used for recreational or
sportinq purposes, but not for temporary dwelling. Examples include, but shall not be limited to,
boat, trailer, golf cart, all terrain vehicle, sand buggy, dune buggy, utility terrain vehicle (side by
side), personal watercraft or similar equipment.
Chapter 17.136 Sign Definitions
Section 17.136.020 Sign Definitions
Linear Frontage. The horizontal distance measured along the building frontage facing the
• street. In cases where a business has no building frontage facing a street, the building frontage
with the primary business entrance shall be considered the primary building frontage (e.g., an
entrance facing a courtyard). For multi-tenant buildings, ground Floor tenants may have their
primary frontage determined independently for the rest of the building based on the
aforementioned rules.
•
C - 42
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
ADDENDUM
This Addendum to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Environmental Impact Report
(SCHN2000061027) (the "EIR") has been prepared in connection with the City's supplemental
amendment to the Development Code (the "Project"). The Addendum confirms that the environmental
impacts stemming from the Project were adequately addressed in the EIR and that a subsequent EIR or
negative declaration is not required for the Project.
Proposed Supplemental Development Code Amendments
The Project consists of supplemental amendments to the City's recently adopted comprehensive
Development Code, which was in turn adopted to implement the policies of the recently completed
2010 General Plan Update. Since adoption of the Development Code update in July 2012, City staff has
identified several errors and omissions in the Development Code that were never intended to be part of
the Code. The purpose of the Project is to correct these errors and omissions and clarify text where
necessary. It is therefore considered to be largely procedural in nature. Table A-1 summarizes the
changes proposed in the project and the reason for including into the Development Code.
Table A-1:Summary of Proposed Changes to the Development Code
:Ai'Eicle "Cha ter „, �,s w Cli
1n"e���
• 17.14 Clarify the approval authority for Large
II 17.16 Family Day Care Applications and reinstate Omitted in error.
100 foot noticing requirement
Revision needed to text to clarify
II 17.14 Clarify the appeal process for Historic that decisions made by the Historic
Preservation Commission decisions. Preservation Commission could be
appealed to the City Council.
Revision needed based on
feedback that some of the current
II 17.16 Clarify the required findings for a Minor required findings do not
Exception.
adequately correlate to the types
of allowed minor exceptions.
Clarify that Minor Design Review Clarification of the language order
II 17.16 applications can be referred to for easier understanding and less
committees (Grading, Technical and
Design Review) if necessary. interpretation.
Error in the translation of the Land
III 17.30 Allow Medical Services, General allowed as Use table as the definition of
a permitted use in the CC District. medical uses was amended in the
Development Code in July 2012.
• ! p�
K
Attachment Page 1of7
Attachment �•/ C—43
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
AiticW :Cha ter, .,; ; Nero o`sed an e)�Ya.. .. u, hs R, r�? fReasoh,i ,.,Mr
Error in the translation of the Land
Allow Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities— Use table as the definition of
III 17.30 Small as a permitted use in the RRC indoor fitness and sports facilities
District. was amended in the Development
Code in July 2012.
Error in the translation of the Land
Allow Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities, Use table as the definition of
III 17.30 Large as a conditionally permitted use in indoor fitness and sports facilities
the RRC District. was amended in the Development
Code in July 2012.
Add a footnote to Family Day Care Home,
III 17.30 large to clarify the use requires a Large Technical clarification.
Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional
Use Permit
III 17.30 Require business to be conducted within Omitted in error.
an enclosed building.
III 17.32 Amend definition of Home Occupation to Required by State law(AB 1616).
include cottage food uses.
Amend the definition of Residential Care Technical clarification to avoid •
III 17.32 Facility to include the care for more than conflict with the definition of
six people. Residential Care Homes.
Amend the definition of Animal Keeping to Clarification to prevent poultry
III 17.32 clarify poultry keeping. keeping in residential zones for
commercial egg production.
Revise the minimum square footage Technical error. The original
III 17.36 requirements for multi-family dwelling residential development standards
units. table was recreated incorrectly.
Technical error. These standards
III 17.36 Delete the private open space are required for multi-family
requirement for VL and L zones. developments, which are not
allowed in these zones.
III 17.36 Reinstate requirements for slope planting Omitted in error.
in rear yards.
Omitted in error. Local and
Re-label "local" streets on Table collector streets have the same
III 17.36 17.36.040-2 to "local/collector" for streetscape setback requirements,
streetscape setback requirements. but collector streets are not listed
on the table.
•
Page 2 of 7
C -44
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
AdIdW.-Chan ter 5, ; MNPro "o$@d'Ghan 9 its r v ; 'r f7A?.�tsR@a$CIIF. tx ,ry #.c
Modification to allow accessory
Incorporate height exceptions for ancillary equipment necessary for
III 17.36 equipment in MI/HI and HI districts with development to be permitted with
discretionary permits. discretionary review and
conditions of approval.
Reincorporate standards for pool
IV 17.42 equipment and outdoor entertainment Omitted in error.
features to be located within the side and
rear yard setbacks.
IV 17.56 Reinstate development standards for Omitted in error.
synthetic turf.
Reinstate lighting standards for outdoor
IV 17.58 recreation courts on residential properties Omitted in error.
Reinstate minimum garage size
IV 17.64 requirements, double striping of parking Omitted in error and a clarification
stalls and clarify the use of tandem of past practice.
parking.
Clarification needed for
Clarify regulations for the parking, storage
consistency with other parking
IV 17.68 and use of recreational vehicles within
• regulations and to better assist
residential areas. code enforcement.
Rename Adult Entertainment Zoning
Permit and clarify the approval authority is Technical change to be consistent
V 17.86 the Planning Commission, not the Planning with text in Chapters 17.14 and
17.20.020.
Director.
Amend home occupation use Amended as required by State law
V 17.92 requirements to allow cottage food uses (AB 1616).
within residential properties.
Add definitions for Second Dwelling Unit Addition required for clarity in
VIII 17.126 and Portable Recreation Equipment. administration of the
Development Code.
Modify the definition of Lot Coverage to Modification to prevent eaves
VIII 17.126 include only eaves greater than 24 inches. from being counted toward lot
coverage.
VIII 17.126 Modify the definition of Recreational Modification required to be
Vehicle. consistent with Chapter 17.68.
Add a definition and graphic for Linear Addition required for clarity in
VIII 17.136 Frontage. calculating linear frontage for sign
area.
The Project will not affect the current methods of conducting environmental review for new
• development applications.
Page 3 of 7
C -45
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
The 2010 General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report
On May 19, 2010, the City Council adopted the 2010 General Plan Update and certified the EIR. The
updated plan serves as the foundation for many of the City's regulatory documents, including the
Development Code, specific plans, community plans, master plans, and design guidelines. With the
2010 General Plan Update, the City's focus shifted to infill development (development of remaining
vacant properties within developed business districts and residential neighborhoods).
The EIR evaluated potential for the 2010 General Plan Update to result in environmental impacts, as
summarized in the following table:
No Mitigation Mitigation Measures Significant and Unavoidable
Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Aesthetics
Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Agricultural Resources
Geology and Soils Materials Air Quality
Population, Housing and Hydrology and Water Quality Climate Change
Employment Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Public Services Noise
Parks and Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems •
The City made findings regarding the environmental impacts of adopting the General Plan as well as
overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts, both individually and cumulatively,
for the following issues: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Mineral
Resources.
The findings made by the City necessary to certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan also included a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program. For impacts to Land Use and Planning, the City
determined that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the General Plan that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR resulting in a less than
significant impact. More specifically the City's findings stated there would be no conflict between the
General Plan and the land development code because updates to the land development code, as well as
adherence to standard conditions related to consistency of future development with the proposed 2010
General Plan Update and the City's Development Code, will reduce the potential impacts related to plan
consistency to a less than significant level.
CEQA Review Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") generally requires agencies to analyze the possible
environmental impacts of a project prior to approval. Depending on the nature and extent of the
potential impacts, the agency may be required to adopt a negative declaration or environmental impact
report(EIR). •
Page 4 of 7
C -46
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration
adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the
following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous OR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
• b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
If the none of these conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
are met, but minor technical changes or additions are necessary to a previously adopted environmental
document are needed, Section 16164 of the CEQA Guidelines allow the lead agency to prepare an
addendum to the prior environmental document.
A brief explanation of the decision not to'prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant should be included in the
addendum, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must
be supported by substantial evidence.
The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final
EIR or adopted negative declaration, and must be considered by the decision-making body prior to
• making a decision on the project.
Page 5 of 7
C -47
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
Analysis
This addendum to the EIR has been prepared for the Project because none of the conditions specified in
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative
declaration are met.
First, the Project does not propose substantial changes in the City's development regulations that were
not analyzed in the EIR or that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.
The Project simply implements the goals and policies adopted in the City's General Plan and analyzed in
the General Plan EIR. The General Plan specifically mentions revises and updating the Development
Code, as shown in the following table.
The Development Code shall be updated to reflect the density and LU-1.1, LU-2.2, LU-3.3, LU-
intensity ranges (especially along Foothill Boulevard) as specified in 3.8, LU-4.2, LU-4.3, LU-4.5,
the General Plan including updating the development standards to LU-5.1, LU-9.5, ED-2.1, ED-
be consistent with the General Plan provisions. (Table LU-2 of 2.4 ED-4.4
Chapter-2)
The Development Code shall be updated to develop guidelines or LU-2.4, LU-9.1, LU-9.2, LU- •
standards that will guide infill development and make it compatible 9.4, ED-1.4, ED-4.1
with the surrounding neighborhood communities
The proposed project does not change either the policies or the figures shown in both the EIR and the
General Plan. The project does not change any densities, intensities, land uses, or designations beyond
those analyzed in the EIR. As a result, there is no change in the project and no new significant
environmental effects,or increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
Second, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. The EIR, which addressed the impacts of adopting the City's General Plan and
revisions to the land development code, was adopted on May 10, 2010. The existing conditions
reported in the EIR are very similar to those currently in existence. Since adoption of the General Plan in
2010, the City has not processed any amendments to the plan. As a result, there are no substantial
changes to the environment which would require a modification of the EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.
Third, there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified that shows (a) •
the Project will have any significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) the significant effects examined
Page 6 of 7
C - 48
4W
Addendum to the
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
•
in the EIR will be substantially more severe than previously shown; (c) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found to be infeasible would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one
or more significant effects of the project; or (d) considerably different mitigation measures or
alternatives than those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment are now available.
As the Project is consistent with the General Plan there are no new effects that were not discussed in
the EIR. Similarly, the Project will not result in changes to the impacts identified in the EIR that could be
considered substantially more severe. The Project does not alter any of the review processes in place
for new projects, nor does it exempt new uses in the zoning ordinance from review. The Project
addresses areas of responsibility for development review and affirms the appropriate body to make
recommendations clarifies appeal procedures and establishes project review timelines. None of these
changes will result in physical changes to the environment inconsistent with the General Plan as
analyzed in the EIR. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Summary
In summary, the General Plan EIR sufficiently analyzed the potential impacts associated with the
proposed Development Code Update. The City has a thorough development review process that is fully
documented in the General Plan EIR, and that will remain in place following the proposed project.
•
•
Page 7 of 7
C - 49
P
Development Code
Amendment
DRC2013-00101
\ ti
i
I
9
Background
• Development Code Update adopted in
July 2012
• Commitment to regular review and
revision
i
• First of two updates for 2013
Nature of Changes
• Reinstate omitted development
standards
• Correct errors in translation of the land
use table
• Incorporate required changes consistent
with State Law
• Clarify existing regulations
Unintended Omissions
• Synthetic turf standards
• Lighting for residential recreation courts
• Double striping of parking spaces
• Business conducted within a building
• Rear yard slope planting
• Garage size requirements
Land Use Translation
• Medical Services, General
— Permitted in Community Commercial
• Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities - Small
— Permitted in Regional Related Commercial
• Indoor Fitness and Sports Facilities -
Large
— Conditionally Permitted in Regional Related
Commercial
i
i
State Law
California Homemade Food Act
— Allows for Cottage Food Operations in
residential areas
— Allows for 1 employee on site
— Allows for retail sales
i
Clarify Existing Regulations
i • Allow pool equipment and outdoor
� entertainment features to be placed in the
rear and side yard setbacks
• Only allow for tandem parking in excess of
required parking
• Revise findings required for a Minor
Exception
• Consistently apply a 72-hour parking time
limit for recreational vehicles
Clarify Existing Regulations
• Prohibit residential occupancy of RV's
• Added or modified definitions
- Second Dwelling Unit
� - Lot Coverage
- Recreational Vehicles
- Portable Recreational Equipment
- Linear Frontage
\ ti
i
Environmental Review
• General Plan Program EIR prepared in
2010
• No new or increased significant effects
not previously considered
• Addendum to the General Plan EIR is
the appropriate level of environmental
review
t i
Recommendation to
City Council
Resolution No . 13-22
— Adopt an addendum to the General Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report
— Recommend approval of Development
Code Amendment DRC2013-00101
Saumem
California
Gas Company
A Sempra Energy utiiity
ADVANCEDmeter
PROJECT OVERVIEW
SoCalGas Service Territory
We serve over 20 million
consumers Service Area Map
r Through 6 million Southern California
meters ^,Visalia Gas Company
Within 20, 000
square miles : Bakersfield
San Luis Obispo
■ 12 counties
■ 226 cities, plusSanta Barbara
• Ventura San Bernardino
■ 500 communities Los Angeles
Palm Springs
Blythe
EI Centro
ADVANCEDmeter
What is the Advanced Meter Project?
■ California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) decision received in April
2010 authorizing $1 .05 billion to
upgrade approximately 6 million
existing natural gas meters with a �.
communication device by 2017 ` "
■ Automatically reads and securely
transmits hourly gas usage
information on a "next day" basis
■ Provides more frequent and detailed
information to help customers better -
PHOTOS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
manage energy use and costs
■ SoCalGas employees will perform
installations
AwANCEDmeter
How Does it Work?
Gas usage is still recorded in the traditional way, it's a new
communication device that transmits the information electronically
■ Does not change the functionality
of the gas meter; No remote
connect / disconnect capabilities
� c Device is off most of the time
• Securely transmits 12 hours of
data 4 times per day to a Data
Collector Unit (total "on" time is
less than 2 minutes per year)
■ Battery-powered
-= Does not communicate with other
meters
■ Does not communicate with
appliances in the home
4 ADVANCEDmeter
How is the information transmitted ?
Gas Meter with Data Collector Unit Southern California Potential Ways to
Communication (DCU) Gas Company Access Your Usage
Module Information
Online ela Hlph BIII Call In
My Account Alerts 00Papel Mobile
,�� PPnce9one
Hourly Reads Solar OR A/C
Transmitted Four Times a Day Powered Powered
5 ADVANCE meter
About the Communication •
Data Collection
E Installing approximately 4,000 DCUs
throughout • service territory
0 Mostly pole mounted
Antennas mounted 24 feet or higher
(licensed 450 MHz frequency)
A/C or Solar Powered
t
+ h
� Maximum
i - Built-inRedundancy- I • I
communicate • • three
DCUsY
ADVANCEDmeter
PHOTO FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Community Outreach Efforts
■ Phase 1 : Network Construction Customer Notification
SoCa/Gas will notify impacted customers of network construction activity
■ Phase 2: Advanced Meter Installation Outreach
SoCa/Gas will implement local community outreach and customer
communication to prepare customers for advanced meter installation
AwANCEDmeter
90 to 60 Days Prior to Installation:
Briefings with Local Elected Officials, Community
Leaders, Chambers, etc.
0 to 30 Days Prior to Installation:
ocal Community Involvement & Events
3
70M,7,777-47"17 F
30 Days Prior to Installation:
Customer receives notification letter
(geographically distributed) a.
z
i'
Installation Day:
Customer receives door hanger confirming installation
has occurred
Post Installation:
Obtain feedback on installation experience
t� - -
Contact Information
■ To learn more about the project, visit:
socalgas.com/advanced
■ Kristine Scott, Public Affairs Manager - 1,
kscott(@semprautilities.com _
909-335-7941 -- I
■ Toni Gustafson, Site Acquisition
Manager -
tgustafson2(@seniprautilities.com
213-244-2208
■ Raul Gordillo, Stakeholder Education
& Outreach Project Manager
rrqordillo(@semprautilities.com
213-244-2540 I
f
9 ADVANCE®meter
Appendix A
Advanced Meter Radio Frequency
■ Communication device is battery-powered and transmits a signal for less than 2
minutes per year
RF energy emitted is considerably less than common, everyday-living items such as
laptops, cell phones wireless routers and handheld radios
I ■ Advanced meters will be located in the same place as the existing meter j
i 1
■ When transmitting, the exposure level is thousands of times lower than the general
j population exposure limits set by the Federal Communications Commission
i ---- - - - -- --- - - - -- 1
Radio Frequency Emission Comparison Chart
� I
Using laptop Maximum exposure
computer with a wireless level operating a Talking on
internet connection microwave oven -cellularphone*
.. 18 intoes from the mw)
1 I
ID
(40
J ■ i
tup to 5,000 up to'rq 0 up to 1 000 000
more
Reference level r-- '� ` t 00°-° ' tx --times mord ' ADVA NCEDI 1 m ICtCr
times.; gttmes moie ,�,
L �
Appendix B
Advanced Meter Radio Frequency
Comparisons to Similar Wireless Technologies
Source Radio Frequency OutputCompared to
Maximum Output.from.an Advanced Meter
Bluetooth Headset Up to 400 times more
Most Electric Smart Meters Up to 500 times more
Cordless Phones Up to 700 times more
Baby Monitors Up to 2,400 times more
Laptop computer with a wireless internet
Up to 5,000 times more
connection
Car or plane remote controllers Up to 7,500 times more
Maximum exposure level operating a microwave Up to 500,000 times more
oven (8 inches from the door)
Talking on a cellular phone Up to 1,000,000 times more
i
i
ADVANCEDmeter
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 8, 2013
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS
ivy-. S ;Je sc�